2006-10-18
Mr Acting Speaker Knight took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 404 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 48 Territory-owned parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. The petition is in similar terms to a petition presented during the August sittings. I move that the petition be now read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 175 petitioners praying that the proposed rezoning of sections 3230, 3231, 3055 and 3056 at Dundee Beach from community purposes be not approved. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be now read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of visitors to Darwin from Ramingining. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, the 16th NT Australian Institute of Management Awards was held last Saturday at SKYCITY. The awards recognise excellence in management in the public and private sectors. Interestingly, the Territory was the first jurisdiction to hold the management awards and their success ensured that the rest of Australia soon followed.
The institute’s vision is simple: to be the Australian Manager’s Career Partner of First Choice. Awards like these are all about recognition and a celebration of those who excel in what they do. They are also a great way of raising awareness about the work that is being done day in and day out right across the Territory.
The key note speaker on Saturday was Launa Inman, the Managing Director of Target Australia. Launa was the Telstra Australian Business Woman of the Year in 2003 and a winner of the Commonwealth government Private and Corporate Sector Award. She gave an inspiring talk about managing people and building and mentoring highly effective workplace teams.
All the finalists were of a very high quality and it must have been very difficult for the judges to choose only one winner in each category. The Professional Manager of the Year Public Sector was Tony Cheng, Manager Works at the Alice Springs Town Council. Tony’s innovative approach to his work and, in particular to increasing green energy efficiency for building projects like the new aquatic centre, was applauded.
George Skene, Project Manager at Macmahon Contractors was the Professional Manager of the Year Private Sector. George has had over 42 years experience in the construction sector and the new Bradshaw Training Facility is just one of many of the projects he has managed. He is currently working on the waterfront.
The Owner/Manager of the Year was Mick Smith, Managing Director of Focus First National. Focus First National has been operating for over four years. Mick, a former policeman, gained experience in the real estate industry before taking the plunge and starting his own business. The business is renowned for its focus on the needs of the customer and attention to detail and in those four years the business has forged ahead.
Northpharm Pty Ltd Director of Pharmacy, Shelley Crowther, was named Young Manager of the Year. Shelley has not only provided RDH with their pharmaceutical needs but also worked closely with health centres in our remote communities.
The calibre of entries for the Young Manager of the Year was so high that the judges, for the first time, awarded a medal for Inspiring Leadership. Sandra O’Connor, Manager at Crocodylus Park, won the inaugural medal. Her team has been instrumental in boosting visitor numbers to the park by 20% this year.
Congratulations to Marie-Louise Pearson, the Chair of AIM NT, and all the judges for their time and effort. Congratulations also to Vicky Spence who organised the awards. It was a great night. The awards are a reminder that Territory managers are right up there with the best in the country and a big reason why the Territory economy keeps moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, the opposition adds its congratulations to those winners – Tony Cheng, George Skene, Mick Smith, Shelley Crowther, Sandra O’Connor from Crocodylus, and also to Marie-Louise who did a fantastic job.
The guest speaker once again lived up to the expectations of how this event is presented each year. Over the past number of years, they have had some outstanding, entertaining and challenging guest speakers, and this one was no exception. Launa Inman gave a very clear and inspirational message that would have remained with those who attended, particularly the issue of a manager being no stronger than their team. Every manager who came up embodied the sentiment that was so well described by Launa; that the weaknesses a leader or a manager has are compensated within the team and any recognition that a leader receives is borne out by the strength and depth of the team.
Flowing from that was the recognition of the need to invest in mentoring and developing strength in others, particularly those who are emerging, and that was an inspiration to all those who attended. It is something that we, as members of this Chamber, should recognise. There are young people out there who have that something special, whether they are on our side of the political fence or not, but they have a contribution to make. As Launa so well put it, even if they are in opposition commercially, it is worth making that investment for the greater good.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, this morning I report on the outcomes to date of the reforms implemented by the Northern Territory government in response to the public liability insurance crisis. As a result of a series of events, including the collapse of HIH, the 11 September terrorist attacks, downturns in insurance and equity markets, public liability and professional indemnity insurance spiralled upwards in price and became less available and had a significant impact on Territory business, not-for-profit organisations and the broader community.
The Territory played an active role in the preparation of national reforms to overcome these problems. A range of law reforms were implemented, principally aimed at providing insurers with greater certainty in pricing risk, while ensuring that fair and reasonable compensation remained available.
Initiatives include:
measures aimed at containing growth in claims costs and changes to court processes to reduce the cost of legal proceedings while also increasing certainty for insurers;
adoption of a permanent impairment model for assessing general damages;
professional liability insurance reforms, including professional standards and proportionate liability legislation; and
requiring people to bear some liability for injuries they suffer in undertaking risky recreational activities such as parachuting or rock climbing.
Evidence is emerging that the reforms implemented to date are having the intended effect.
The most recent report of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s national claims and policies database finds that:
average professional indemnity premiums in the Territory fell 20.1% between 2004 and 2005, following a 6.8% fall the previous year;
in 2005, the Territory had the lowest average professional indemnity premium of $2249, compared to the national average of $4861, reflecting in part the relatively small size of Territory professional firms;
national average professional indemnity claims incurred declined by 23.9% between 2004 and 2005;
average public and product liability premiums in the Territory fell by 15% between 2004 and 2005, following a 1.5% fall the previous year;
the average public and product premium in the Territory in 2005 was $784 compared with the national average of $801; and
national average public and product liability claims incurred fell by 16.3% between 2004 and 2005.
The report also indicates that observed declines in average premiums was not a result of reduced coverage.
The extent of reforms implemented to date, combined with the results of independent industry monitoring, underscores the Territory government’s commitment to ensuring that insurance remains affordable and accessible for Territory businesses and members of the community.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, it is an interesting report, and well noted that the level of risk, as I understand it as presented in that report, is less in the Territory than it is nationally. I look forward to reading some more of the details of that report. However, I could not help but reflect upon this being roughly the anniversary of the time that this Treasurer began to soften the ground for a campaign to sell off the Territory Insurance Office, commencing at about this time last year when his old thought bubble went up: ‘We may be able to cash that asset in and perhaps have a short-term financial gain which would look really good on the books, because we do have a bit of a cash problem’ which prepared the ground for that. That whole exercise really galvanised the actions within the community to resist such a move, and good on them. I was only thinking this morning as I drove past TIO, that Meagan Moravec did a fantastic job in giving voice to the concerns of the wider community.
That whole exercise had one very beneficial outcome: the Treasurer admitted at the time that these issues related to risk carriage within the Territory and were difficult and complex matters. It appears that the report today gives us greater insight into the specific risk levels within the Territory. I guess, looking back, one of the other lessons that we have learned from that whole exercise of government is that TIO should be respected, and I trust it will be safe into the future.
It is no coincidence though that, this time this year, another thought bubble has been raised, and that is related to the possibilities of cost blowouts to the waterfront as we go into the Christmas period. We will see how that develops.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, in relation to the whole exercise of the legislation and the problems we were having in all of those insurance products three years ago, much has been learned, I believe, both by the industry itself, and by insurance companies of how to price. We are now getting significant differentials in pricing for Territory product as compared to the rest of Australia. The Territory is 1% of the national market; Australia is 1% of the global market. Insurance companies in the past did not differentiate down to that level. It is good that they now do.
In relation to TIO, this is a government that listens.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, today I speak about the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, and it is also appropriate that I also acknowledge the two gentlemen from Ramingining.
Last month, I had the privilege of being invited by the chairman of the authority, Mr Roy Hammer, to attend its recent meeting in Tennant Creek. I thank the authority for that opportunity.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority plays a paramount role in the protection of sacred sites in the Northern Territory, under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989. Authority members indicated to me that a main goal of the authority is to enhance relations between sacred site custodians and the wider Territorian population. It achieves this by consulting with custodians and proponents of work to reach mutually acceptable agreements, and issuing authority certificates setting out the conditions under which the proposed works may proceed; receiving and evaluating requests for the registration of sites; maintaining a register of sacred sites and making it available for public inspection; prosecuting offences against the act; and convening, reviewing and reporting on matters arsing from any appeal against a decision or action of the authority.
These authority functions not only ensure the protection of sacred sites, but increase the level of certainty for those wishing to commit resources for economic development. The work of the authority has also increased appreciation within the community of the value of Aboriginal sacred sites and the traditional interest in sacred sites.
The authority meets on a regular basis with various industry groups, including the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Seafood Council, and the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory. Land council staff and members are also regularly invited to meetings to discuss site protection issues. The Chairman of the Central Land Council was also at that meeting in Tennant Creek.
The authority board has 12 members, appointed for a period of three years. The current board members are: Mr Roy Hammer, Chairperson. Mr Hammer is a very important leader from the Borroloola Gulf region. Other board members include: Ms Milly Milliwanga, Deputy Chair and well-known artist from Barunga/Manyallaluk; Ms Banduk Marika, an artist and senior Rirratjingu woman from Yirrkala; Ms Jenny Inmulugulu, a senior woman for her clan and a Northern Land Council regional council member; Mr Captain Woditj, a senior custodian for lands reaching from Palumpa down to the Fitzmaurice River; Mr Robert Tipungwuti, senior Tiwi man who has held many representative and political roles; Ms Lynette Granites from Yuendumu, senior ceremonial leader; Mr Bernard Abbott, an Arrernte man from Wallace Rockhole and a Central Land Council member; Ms Lena Pula, a senior woman from Utopia; Mr Pepy Simpson, a Warumungu man from Tennant Creek and a member of the Central Land Council; Mr Dick Kimber, a well-known and respected historian from Alice Springs; and Ms Olga Havnen, experienced in Aboriginal policy at a senior level for many years.
Whilst the authority has recorded approximately 10 000 registered and recorded sites, many of the latter do not have a full complement of accompanying information. Given that, unfortunately, many senior Aboriginal people are now passing away, the authority perceives the accurate recording of data sites as a priority task. Significantly enhanced site records not only provide certainty to developers and the broader public, but allow Aboriginal people another avenue to preserve important culture data.
Mr Acting Speaker, I acknowledge the work of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and its staff and its important role in the protection of Aboriginal heritage.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, the protection and recognition of sacred sites is a very important area and issue for this wider community. To recognise something as sacred to another person is something that requires mutual respect. It also requires mutual understanding. That is one aspect of this whole area that does trouble me. I have raised this in a speech in this parliament before: that we should be able to advance that issue so that those who are outside the view that a certain object is sacred have every opportunity to have a better understanding of that which is sacred to another person.
There are aspects of this legislation and this process that does not accentuate that part of it. For the sake of the future, we need to make sure that we do attend to that so that we have a greater capacity for access to those who are outside these things that are held sacred by others - just as those who are of a different faith have some obligation to give insights to those who do not share that faith, into the reasons for their faith and hope.
There are also other issues. I foreshadow there is an issue that I, in opposition, will be attending to and that is the misuse of this legislation, or this capacity to register a site as sacred which does, particularly in the issue of the fishing industry, restrict their access to strategic waters. That area needs to be attended to so that, if it does displace fishing activity, there should be, in the interests of mutual obligation and respect, some kind of response to the negative effect that it places upon a fisherman. These are problems that need to be solved if we are going to advance these issues in the interests of mutual respect.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his supportive contribution. I readily agree with you as, indeed, does the whole of the Northern Territory, regarding the importance of sacred sites and the role that it plays in our society. The important thing here is that you have raised the issue of mutual understanding. That is the way forward. I congratulate the staff at the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, as they are actually doing that.
You referred to the restrictions to fishing. They are engaging with the Seafood Council of the Northern Territory, and working their way forward. Other industry groups they are talking to are the Cattlemen’s Association of the Northern Territory and the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory. I applaud the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority for that initiative. It is important to get out there to ensure that the role of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is made clear and publicised, and that there is the opportunity for two-way engagement. They are doing that and I applaud them.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, today I have received a request from the member for Blain to make a personal explanation in relation to allegations of plagiarism. I have accepted the request.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, during Question Time yesterday the minister for Education and Leader of Government Business said:
He went on further to suggest that the opposition was copying, cheating, and plagiarising policy from interstate and overseas.
Although the minister was wrong to suggest it is the only CLP policy in relation to education, this is not the most offensive thing he said. What is most offensive and incorrect is any suggestion the CLP and, by inference, I as the portfolio holder, plagiarised the policy. The opposition Healthy Eating School Canteen policy was developed after careful research of both international and national models, and written specifically for application in Territory school communities. It included education and implementation details.
The adoption of a universally recognised code, Red Amber Green, was adopted to best communicate an important message to students, similar to the use of a pyramid to describe a healthy eating scheme. Neither could be, or would be, regarded as original ideas. Allegations of policy plagiarism are serious matters and, without substantive evidence, it is a disgrace that the third highest ranking member of this government would make such allegations anywhere, especially in this Chamber.
To be clear, any suggestion of plagiarism is comprehensively wrong, without basis, and reprehensible.
Ms Carney: Hear, hear! You should be brave and say it outside. Wonder if you would say it then, you gutless wonder.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw that, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I will, Mr Acting Speaker.
BUSINESS NAMES BILL
(Serial 73)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the current Business Names Act and replace it with more modern legislation. The bill is an example of the government’s commitment to reducing red tape for businesses by abolishing the requirement that a business owner who resides interstate must appoint a resident agent in the Territory.
For member’s information, the current Business Names Act dates back to 1962 and replaced the previous ordinance which had its origins in the 1930s. Members may also be interested to learn that the act is largely based on legislation originating in Great Britain as a wartime measure in 1916, and it was designed in part to reveal foreign proprietors of British businesses.
Notwithstanding these origins, the objectives of the business names legislation in the 21st century are primarily that of consumer protection. It provides a means to identify the persons who use a name other than their own when conducting business in the Northern Territory. Reasons why the identify of such persons might be sought include: consumers seeking redress in relation to unsatisfactory goods and services; debt recovery by other traders; credit checks prior to goods being forwarded on consignment; and obtaining details for other legal proceedings. The act also provides a mechanism for ensuring that undesirable business names cannot be used; for example, names that might be offensive or mislead consumers about the nature of the business or the business operators.
The government recently determined it necessary to make several amendments to the current Business Names Act. In the course of drafting the amendments it became clear, because of the age of the act and its associated outdated terminology and drafting style, the exercise was larger than was anticipated. It was decided the changes were best achieved by a separate bill repealing the current act and re-enacting it. The result is this bill is more logically set out and easier to read. It substantially retains the requirements of the current act but with some changes to reflect modern best practice and business requirements in the Territory.
First, as the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs has been administering the Business Names Act for a number of years, the bill abolishes the statutory position of Registrar of Business Names, and cites the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs as the person responsible for administration of the act.
Another important change I mentioned earlier is the abolition of the resident agent requirement. The act currently requires a person carrying on business in the Territory under a business name, but who does not reside in the Territory, must appoint a resident agent. The appointment of a resident agent had the objective of facilitating the service of notices, and providing a local point of contact for persons who reside interstate. However, advances in communication and database technology have made it easy to locate and contact businesses based outside the Territory. Access to trader details and a number of state, territory and Commonwealth registers means there is no longer any justification for the added burden of costs associated with the appointment of a resident agent. The removal of the concept of resident agent is consistent with business names legislation in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.
Other changes include an updating of the penalty levels, the approval of forms by the commissioner instead of forms being prescribed by regulation, and other amendments of a statute law revision nature, such as removal of gender specific references, spent transitional provisions and other matters of this nature.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. Every day, optometrists attend to Territorians with eye infections, allergies and other conditions or injuries that require simple, well-established treatments using ocular medicines. However, optometrists are unable to provide treatment to many of their clients because section 29 of the current Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act does not recognise optometrists as an approved group of persons who can supply medication.
The purpose of this amendment to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act is to remove that restriction and allow appropriately qualified optometrists to supply a restricted range of medication for the treatment of eye problems.
Optometrists are the primary eye care providers to the Northern Territory community. They have an excellent track record of detecting and diagnosing eye disease. Optometrists using over-the-counter medications already treat many minor ocular diseases on a daily basis. Optometrists have also established co-management relationships with ophthalmologists and, together, they care for patients with potentially vision threatening conditions such as glaucoma, macular degeneration, and diabetic retinopathy. Under the current legislation, however, optometrists must refer clients to general practitioners and ophthalmologists for a written prescription for eye medications.
Permitting optometrists to supply a range of medications to treat eye disorders will ensure that patients receive prompt and appropriate treatment, particularly in remote and rural areas. A number of systems will be put in place to ensure safety and quality. Only those optometrists who have completed a rigorous education program will be authorised by the Optometrist Board of the Northern Territory to supply medications to their patients. A therapeutic advisory committee will be established by the board to provide advice to the board on matters relating to therapeutic medications. The supply of medications by authorised optometrists will be subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by the Optometrist Board.
Finally, authorised optometrists will be required to practice in accordance with the board-endorsed clinical pathways for optometric management of ocular conditions.
Both Tasmania and Victoria allow the administration and supply of scheduled medications by optometrists, and Queensland is in the process of introducing a similar system. Note that the current act already recognises medical practitioners, dentists, veterinary surgeons, dental therapists, certain registered nurses, and certain Aboriginal heath workers depending on practice settings, as persons who can supply scheduled medications.
Ophthalmologists in the Northern Territory were consulted in the preparation of these amendments. Due to the demand for eye health in the Northern Territory and the limited numbers of ophthalmologists, I am advised that they have been supportive of changes that will, in practice, lead to better eye care for Territorians.
This amendment will provide for the public interest by increasing the range of health care practitioners who can manage ocular conditions, while putting systems in place to guarantee the safety and quality of care. Patients will be able to choose whom they consult about their eye disorder: a general practitioner, an ophthalmologist or optometrist.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 30 August 2006.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I had not planned to speak to this, but having read the second reading speech by the minister at the last sittings, I felt that there was very little that the opposition would be opposed to in this bill. However, I have a few questions I look forward to the minister responding to in his closing remarks.
In the bill, the definition of bioprospecting does not quite define what bioprospecting is, apart from the point he made that there was a whole list of what does not constitute bioprospecting. That leaves a whole range of things that could be classified as bioprospecting. In terms of discovering biological material that could become commercially useful, most times it is due to good fortune and good luck, rather than specific exploration for something biological that could be of use in the future.
Many a time there is an accidental discovery, somebody stumbling over something that looked particularly interesting, and they go from there. Any material that is thus obtained, with or without permission of the owner of that particular object or biological material, could sit stored away for years and years, or could be experimented upon for many years. As interest in the discovery grows, commercial interests may take over and continue to fund research of the material until such time that the material becomes commercially useful.
On reading the bill quickly, I was not able to determine at what point in time the traditional owners’ interests comes to bear, and how a commercial operation that has bioprospecting and researching material would then have to pay whatever commercial benefits to the owner of the biological material. Obviously, if somebody stumbles over, say, a plant on the side of a public road, there is no compensation provided by the discoverer to what could be seen as the traditional owner of that biological material. Say, for instance, on traditional lands you have a particular species of a plant, but that plant is also grown on the verges of the Stuart Highway. There is a traditional link between the owners of the land and the plant; does the accidental discovery of the plant along the verge of Stuart Highway constitute bioprospecting? I do not know how you would define that. While a traditional group of people might be linked to a particular plant and say: ‘This is our totem’ – if that is the right word to use – ‘and thus it is our property’, if somebody finds a plant on the verge of Stuart Highway, how do you differentiate between whether that person owes any obligation to the traditional owner that is associated with that particular plant?
It is a fairly complex issue. It is the same issue about intellectual property or, in this case, actual property rights. Who has the property rights? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and I cannot discover that by reading the bill. If I were to have a property that has a plant growing on it and I invited somebody to come onto my property to bioprospect, and then another group said: ‘This plant has grown on our traditional land for a long time’, who then has the commercial right to the property? Does the traditional owner have the commercial right? Do I have the commercial right because I invited the bioprospector to come to my land to research the plant that I found interesting in the first instance, and the complications go on? I hope there is an explanation possible.
On the surface, it appears it is fair enough. People who have a link to a particular biological resource should be compensated in some way. Is compensation just an acknowledgement that the property was discovered in a particular area and certain people have traditional link, or is there a commercial value? I do not know and it is too complex to consider. As I have said, I have not exercised my mind to this in any great detail so it is a bit hard to debate this any further. I did not seek a briefing because I was not planning to talk about this.
With those few comments, on the surface I support that there should be some rights of people who own the biological material. However, there are some questions I hope the minister can answer. If you can do that, apart for that, I support the bill, but I will support it with some reservation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I support and commend my colleague’s Biological Resources Bill. I commend any bill which seeks to protect the unique biological resources of our Territory. I especially support one that does it in a way that has the potential to generate income for our remote communities.
Recognition of the validity of sustainable use of wildlife is, of course, deeply imbedded within traditional Aboriginal perspectives of plants and animals.
The Northern Territory has been an early player in the field of bioprospecting, and doing it well before current frameworks were in place. We have, therefore, been an important player in developing the frameworks with our state and federal counterparts. The Northern Territory was well positioned to ensure that indigenous interests have been recognised in developing the policies and legislation.
A nice example of early indigenous involvement in bioprospecting was the contractual arrangement put in place between the Tiwi people and the former Australian Medical Research and Development Corporation. The Tiwi Land Council entered into an agreement with the Australian Medical Research and Development Corporation, or AMRAD - later known as Cerylid Biosciences - in the mid-1990s to allow the collection of plant samples on the Tiwi Islands. These samples were screened for pharmacological activity, and potential new pharmaceuticals. As well as possible future royalties to the Tiwis, there were other forms of benefits such as the sponsorship of the Tiwi plant and animal book on Tiwi traditional ecological knowledge. It came as no surprise that the Northern Territory would be in a position to develop its own dedicated legislation to provide a legal framework governing access to biological resources within the Northern Territory for the purposes of bioprospecting.
The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act already allows plants and animals to be taken only under a permit. This new Biological Resources Bill utilises that provision and builds on a number of other elements. It ensures that:
Importantly, the new legislation provides a clear process to gain legal access to biological resources, and then provides a certainty of legal ownership of samples collected under the agreement.
Bioprospecting seems to me to make sense of some of the most archaic elements of biological research. For example, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is home to several expert scientists and biologists. One of these experts is Dr Chris Glasby who is an annelid worm specialist. He spends a lot of time researching marine nereid worms of the genus Perinereis. These worms are common in Northern Australia but not much is known about them, yet they apparently have promising biomedical and waste management potential. For example - and forgive me for getting a little out of my depth with the science - the extracellular giant haemoglobin from one species of marine worm has potential application for carbohydrate gluing which is a good application in orthopaedic surgery. From the same species, which is about to become a very useful worm, a peptide has been found to have significant antimicrobial activity which may offer general application in the search for new antibiotics. The member for Sanderson’s contribution yesterday to the MAGNT statement went into depth regarding the science area. Other species in this genus have been found to be useful in treating domestic waste. Dr Glasby’s research on these worms is aimed at discovering what other species exist in Northern Australia and their potential for human use.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is something of a leading light in this area. MAGNT is the principle Australian partner in a cooperative research and bioprospecting program with the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the United States National Cancer Institute. This program is worth approximately $1.5m. The program is led by the museum’s Dr Belinda Alvarez de Glasby, a world-class expert on sponges, and has involved the collection of samples of marine animals such as soft corals and sponges for screening by the National Cancer Institute for new pharmaceutical compounds with curative and preventative properties for cancer and AIDS. The collaboration between the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the National Cancer Institute is subject to a benefit sharing arrangement which provides for royalties in the event that a compound from the Northern Territory is licensed to a pharmaceutical company for production and marketing.
Over 800 samples have now been sent from the Northern Territory for screening and extraction of bioactive compounds. However, it could be several years before there are definite results. There have been short-term benefits though. MAGNT has been able to build capacity in this marine research area and significantly increase our knowledge of the Territory’s marine biodiversity. The bioprospecting program has also enabled leverage of additional funding from the Australian Biological Resource Survey to undertake further work in conjunction with Charles Darwin University, which is aimed at gaining a better understanding of the potential pharmaceutical properties of these marine organisms. This fundamental research into our marine life is of vital importance and may lead to further exciting biodiscoveries that could be worth millions of dollars to the Territory in the future.
We cherish our wildlife in the Territory: our flora and our fauna. This bill adds another level of protection for our flora and fauna as a biological resource and provides a path to creating economic, research and employment opportunities. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, I support this important groundbreaking bill designed to provide the important legal framework governing access to our precious biological resources. These are no less our resources than those in the ground or in our rivers or seas, hence the use of terms such as biodiversity, biological resources, bioprospecting, biodiscovery and even biopiracy.
Biodiversity refers to the intrinsic value of life; all living things that share the third planet from the sun with us. It is a fundamental aspect of ecological processes and we rely on biodiversity in order to live. Biodiversity has three major elements and these should be noted: species diversity; ecosystem diversity; and genetic diversity, all of which are interdependent and equally important. Biodiversity provides ecosystem services, biological resources and social benefits.
Our biological resources within the relevance to this bill relate to the collection of chemicals or compounds that exist in our natural flora or fauna with particular importance as major sources of active pharmaceutical compounds sourced, for example, from flowering plants: sunscreen components from corals, and insecticide sourced from our native trees. These are the types of products that we are looking to be able to selectively collect for the betterment of mankind. Because they are such an important resource, it is quite understandable that we have a right to protect and manage these resources. There is potential for big financial gains at the potential detriment of those referred to as ‘resource access providers’ in the bill.
Let me define for you who are the resource access providers, because that is an important aspect. Under the act, a resource access provider is: for freehold land, the owner of the land; for Aboriginal land, the Aboriginal Land Trust established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act; for an Aboriginal community living area, the owner of the land is an association within the meaning of the Associations Act or Aboriginal councils and associations; for land subject to native title, the registered native title corporate; for land held under park freehold, the relevant park land trust under the Parks and Reserves Act; for Crown land, the NT government; for special purpose leases, the NT government again; and for land under the Pastoral Land Act, the NT government.
The stakes are high and governments do need to act to protect all stakeholders and potential stakeholders. As an example, if the land is subject to a pastoral lease under the Pastoral Land Act, the resource access provider for the purposes of bioprospecting is the Territory government, but physical access must be arranged with the lessee. The NT government is to be commended for being up there with the most proactive of states in enacting the necessary legislation now; not waiting for other jurisdictions to do it first.
Let me discuss some aspects of the bill. The most important aspect is the protection of the resource. This is great legislation which seeks to utilise and protect our valuable natural resources. Through biodiversity we can open biodiversity treasures while keeping our forests, rivers and seas untouched for future generations. Through this bill, we have the technology to explore the value in biodiversity without having to destroy it. As I said before, the bill ensures that this happens.
This bill sets the rules by which the process of biodiscovery will be managed. It is to the benefit of our stakeholders. We must act as custodians of our environment for future generations. We also recognise that plants, animals and other organisms in our environment contain treasures of great value to all of us. Biodiversity gives us the potential to search for new and unique ways to treat diseases and overcome increasing problems of antibiotic resistance. While we are talking about biodiversity, we should note that Australia is one of only 17 mega-diverse environments in the world, and the combined biological diversity in those 17 mega-diverse environments accounts for 80% of the world’s biological diversity.
There are ethical guidelines that the bill encompasses. It will not only provide guidance to those collecting samples, but also support best practice in the industry. Bioprospectors will be bound to undertake their prospecting activities in an ecologically sustainable manner. There are jobs and skills. This bill gives us the opportunities for more jobs and capturing a greater share of global research and development expenditure. Of course, these solutions are long-term solutions. Let me stress this: this is long-term legislation, being put in place now to protect our future generations.
This brings me to the point about the traditional uses. We can all relate to how our mothers and our grandmothers used to talk about particular remedies and things they knew from their childhood. Some of them are unique to Australia, some to other parts of the world. This is not something new, this has been around. This is about bringing that whole process into the 21st century. We should appreciate that some 80% of the world’s population, even now, rely on traditional medicines because it is either cheaper, more accessible, or more culturally appropriate.
Which leads me to our traditional owners. The value of significance of traditional knowledge handed down over thousands of years by the indigenous people is recognised in this bill. We have gone further than most other jurisdictions, in fact, I would say further than any other jurisdiction, in making sure that the benefits from biodiscovery flow on to the traditional knowledge holders.
In conclusion, I will make three or four points here. We are at the forefront. This is new territory for us, but we are well in front of some of the other states which have not started the process of protecting their natural resources. We are not waiting for others; we are up there amongst the best. It is a bipartisan approach. It also has the support of the federal government, whose officers are promoting our legislation as best practice. That is a credit to us.
DBERD will be working closely with the departments of Parks and Wildlife and Marine Services to ensure there is no double handling for people wanting to apply for permits, and no unnecessary delay. I acknowledge, and I am glad and appreciate that the opposition does support this bill, because this is important for future generations when we are all gone. That should be acknowledged and I do appreciate that.
Finally, there is no conflict with existing laws. The legislation does not conflict with permits needed to collect plants and wildlife for agriculture or animal husbandry purposes. It is not planned to introduce a fee for permits at this stage as it is unknown how many permits will be sought in the short term.
Mr Acting Speaker, I am proud to support this important bill, and we should all be proud in this House, because it is for future generations.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Speaker, for the Northern Territory, this is the first time an open and transparent government scheme for access to and using biological resources has been proposed. The Biological Resources Bill has been developed to provide a legislative framework to support the policy for access to and use of biological resources in the Northern Territory. The bill includes the following key elements: prior informed consent; access and benefit sharing agreements; a framework for reporting and monitoring; and the ability to issue and revoke certificates of provenance.
Prior informed consent ensures that the resource access provider is aware of bioprospecting activities that may occur. Benefit sharing agreements required under the bill ensure the resource access provider has potential to receive a benefit in the event a commercially significant lead is identified. It is about capitalising on sustainable economic opportunities from our natural resources, and encouraging the development and adoption of more innovative and productive technologies.
Certificates of provenance are the key legitimatising factor for biodiscovery in the modern world and represent an essential part of the bill. In the past biopiracy has been an issue in the Northern Territory, with a specific exampled outlined during the second reading speech. This regime would provide certainty and help ensure that biopiracy is all but eliminated in the Territory.
The policy and bill have taken a number of years to reach this point. This has involved considerable consultation and research into world best practices in an effort to create a framework establishing us as a global leader in the field.
My department of DBERD has received requests from both the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments for assistance in developing similar policy and legislation. At an international level, the Commonwealth government has recommended for countries with an interest in developing similar legislation and policy to look to the Northern Territory as a starting point and potential model.
The importance of this legislation has been reinforced by the Japanese Bioindustry Association (JBA), which has contacted my department regarding a delegation which will visit the Territory in early December to discuss access, certificates of provenance, and collaboration to benefit both the Northern Territory and the JBA. The JBA has previously refused to deal with Australian states lacking in legislative framework for biodiscovery. The JBA has around 1700 members, including giants such as Mitsubishi, Toyota, Dow Chemicals, Santori, Fuji, Fujitsu, Olympus and Hitachi.
Biodiscovery is intimately linked with pharmaceuticals and human health. However, natural products are increasingly seen as being able to provide new sustainable pathways for industrial process and production of bioindustrial feed stocks. Without our diversity of ecosystems and species within these, the Territory is an attractive place to undertake biodiscovery.
With the introduction of this bill, we will be able to go to the world with confidence to create a new industry and attract investment and build employment in areas not previously possible. By passing this bill, the House will endorse legislation which will be a benchmark and provide opportunities for development of capacity and capability in the area of biodiscovery within the Territory. In the business of parliament, we are often involved in important matters but, just occasionally, there are highlights where the House has the opportunity to pass groundbreaking, historical and world-leading legislation. Today, we have done just that, which is great news for the Territory and for future of all Territorians.
I will respond to questions raised by the member for Greatorex, who understands a brand new bill is a groundbreaking bill, and there will be some questions. He gave the example of somebody picking up a flower from the side of the Stuart Highway. He probably picked that flower because it was nice. However, if that person was a scientist and goes back and puts it in the laboratory to find out what is in the flower, what this person is really doing is bioprospecting in accordance with section 5, which describes what bioprospecting is. If a person picked wildflowers just because he liked the wildflower, that is not bioprospecting. However, the moment that person starts using that wildflower for biodiscovery, then it becomes bioprospecting. Then, of course, the beneficiary there would be the Territory because the legal owner of the road and the road reserve is the Northern Territory of Australia.
On the other hand, he said if I invite somebody to come to my land to do bioprospecting, that is fantastic; no problems at all. The difference, of course, is that under section 11, that person, in order to carry out bioprospecting on private land, has to seek a permit, which is issued by the CEO of the department administering this act. In order for the CEO to issue this permit, he has to satisfy himself that a number elements are covered, including that a benefit sharing agreement has been negotiated, and all the information included in it. The benefit sharing agreement has to be in accordance with section 29.
Returning to the issue of the road where a person picked up a flower, did an analysis on the flower and found a beneficial chemical. That person, without knowing he was bioprospecting, now wants to legitimise his bioprospecting. He can come to us under section 30 and go through a mechanism to make this bioprospecting legal. The legislation clearly describes the different stages: what is biodiscovery; what is bioprospecting; and how you go about it. That is very important.
I would like to repeat that this is groundbreaking, historical and world-leading legislation. I pay tribute, first of all, to my colleague, the member for Wanguri, for introducing this legislation in his previous capacity as the minister for DBERD, and to the people who did the extremely hard and great work in the department, particularly Murray Hird and Kylie Higgins. They need to be congratulated. We also have to congratulate ourselves as a parliament today. We will pass the best and most comprehensive legislation in the world about bioprospecting and biodiscovery, and biodiversity.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
National Radioactive Waste Facility
in the Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, on 15 July 2005, the Commonwealth government announced that it would build a national radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory at one of three sites selected by the Commonwealth. The proposal is for a facility consisting of buildings for unloading and handling materials; shallow trenches for storage of radioactive waste in containers; and a perimeter fence. Based on limited information from the Commonwealth, we found out the dump would be used to house Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste. This means all nuclear waste produced by the Commonwealth departments, agencies and statutory bodies, including the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor and any military ordnance, would be stored at this dump. We were told that from 2011 the nuclear dump would also house spent nuclear fuel rods returned under contractual arrangements from France and Scotland. It was this deadline which justified the hasty establishment of a nuclear waste facility.
It remains something of a mystery as to how these three sites were chosen because Territorians had been given a categorical assurance that we would not be getting a nuclear waste dump. On 30 September 2004, just before the federal election, Senator Ian Campbell as minister for the Environment, stated:
Whilst Senator Campbell may have grasped the geography of the situation, the promise made no difference. A few months later we were told that three sites in the Territory had been chosen as possible sites for a nuclear waste dump. Truth, it seems, has a very short half-life when it comes to pronouncements by Senator Campbell.
In November 2005, the Australian government introduced two bills to support construction of the facility: the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendments) Bill which became law in late November. This legislation was designed to ‘put beyond doubt’ the federal government’s power to select a site and build a nuclear waste dump. The legislation provides for a facility to manage waste generated by the Commonwealth. It proscribes actions that may ‘regulate, hinder, or prevent’ work towards the creation of the facility, and it overrides any state or territory legislation that may compete with the Commonwealth’s intention in this matter. Further, this legislation allows the Commonwealth to extinguish all rights in connection with land selected for the facility, or for an all-weather road that would access it. Any existing, or future, Territory laws that purport to prohibit, regulate, or hinder site selection, the establishment and operation of the facility, or the transportation of waste, are all declared to have no effect.
A most unusual aspect of the Commonwealth’s legislation is that it specifically removes entitlements to procedural fairness in relation to the facility by removing the right of a judicial review. These provisions deliberately, and specifically, set aside existing laws made by the democratically elected Legislative Assembly of the self-governing Northern Territory. They prescribe future and other laws as being of no effect and are a serious erosion of the democratic rights of Territorians, and are contrary to the concept of self-government; create legal uncertainty to the application of Northern Territory laws; and are contrary to the principles of good governance. This is unwarranted and unjustified.
Regardless of anyone’s personal views on whether we ought to have a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, any right minded Territorian should be outraged at the process the Commonwealth has used.
This legislation comprehensively and deliberately overrides and extinguishes rights, acts and provisions of the Territory. It erodes the whole principle of self-government. The process departs totally from the long-running consensus-based process to create a national waste facility since 1979, including parliamentary inquiries.
Since 1992, the process has included agreed scientific and environmental criteria for suitable sites. Discussions have reflected broad agreement that there should be a central facility that would aggregate waste from 30 Commonwealth sites and 100 state and territory sites where radioactive waste is stored. This waste amounts to 3700 m of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste and about 500 m of long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste of which 90% is generated by HIFAR, the High Flux Australian Reactor, at Lucas Heights.
Within this process, the majority view has been that a central holding place accepting radioactive waste from all jurisdictions would provide higher levels of safety and security. The Commonwealth has now abandoned this model. It has imposed a dump for Commonwealth waste on the Territory, and left the states and territories to make their own arrangements for waste generated in their jurisdictions.
The way the Australian government has gone about this whole process of site selection approval for a nuclear waste repository is amateurish, patronising, superficial, ignorant and irresponsible. The process was so dismissive that I pledged to find out more and made a personal visit to France and Finland, amongst the biggest nuclear nations, to understand the problem and how they tackle waste disposal.
The main reason invoked by the Commonwealth to justify its high-handed actions is the contractual obligations between Australia and France; the obligation to accept used HIFAR fuel rods returning in 2011 from reprocessing in France. These are regarded as long-lived intermediate level waste - though I will say more about the trickery associated with definitions of radioactive waste. They are more radioactive than most Australian waste and, therefore, more sensitive in relation to public opinion.
Initially, the Commonwealth was very coy about what type of waste was to be stored at the facility. On 15 July 2005, Brendan Nelson said:
The information we are getting from the Australian government is not accurate and is certainly not complete. It took my trip to France and Finland and personal meetings with many different people and organisations to discover what is going on with Australia’s nuclear waste.
Let me outline the true story of our contractual arrangements with France over the reprocessing and return of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights.
In 1999, ANSTO, or the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the operator of HIFAR and COGEMA (now AREVA) operator of the French plutonium factories at La Hague, signed a contract for the management of ANSTO’s research reactor spent fuel. The agreement envisaged the reprocessing of spent fuel from HIFAR as well as future spent fuel from the now approved Replacement Research Reactor.
The quantity of spent fuel sent to France from the HIFAR at Lucas Heights is 3613 kg of metal. Four shipments of spent fuel have occurred, with the rest of the spent fuel to be sent to France in one shipment every three to five years, the first planned for 2009. Each shipment is expected to have 100 to 200 fuel assemblies for reprocessing.
The year 2011 will not be the end of the matter. On the contrary, ANSTO will continue to send shipments of spent fuel to France. COGEMA will continue to reprocess it. The waste will continue to be returned to Australia. The return shipment of waste from spent fuel is scheduled, under the contract, to take place in 2015 the latest. Publicly, they say the deadline is 2011. The ANSTO/COGEMA agreement does not mention the year 2011.
Why is the Commonwealth government not admitting to this extra four years and insisting on rushing through with no consultation? We are told by the federal government that we need this waste dump, and we need it fast, otherwise we cannot fulfil our obligation to accept back the reprocessed fuel.
I have already explained that the deadline of 2011 claimed by the Commonwealth does not exist. The lack of an appropriate disposal facility in Australia is only one of the obstacles for a quick solution to the legal challenges. We have never been publicly told that there are legal uncertainties in France that could impact on the arrangement. About 80% of the HIFAR spent fuel was shipped to France between 2000 and 2004. Several French NGOs and independent experts have asserted for many years that the French law of 1991 prohibiting the storage of foreign nuclear waste in France has been violated continuously by the long-term storage and reprocessing of foreign spent fuel rods on French soil.
In December 2005, the Court of Annulment, France’s highest civil court, said importing of the ANSTO spent fuel was illegal. This means, in principle, that the material that has already been shipped to La Hague, and not yet processed, has to be sent back to Australia. The future of ANSTO’s unprocessed spent fuel rods in France remains subject to large legal uncertainties in France. Several scenarios need to be evaluated in the light of these legal uncertainties:
(1) the 1999 ANSTO/COGEMA contract may be carried out. This means that the entire quantity of Lucas Heights’ fuel is reprocessed and the resulting wastes are sent back; or
(2) the 1999 ANSTO/COGEMA contract may have to be abandoned. Australia will then have to take back all remaining unprocessed spent fuel, as well as waste resulting from already reprocessed spent fuel.
It would be very useful if the Commonwealth government could have these scenarios evaluated before making its disposal decision. Clearly, we need to have a management system in place that can handle these different situations. I see no evidence of that - no evidence of planning at all.
There is more misleading information. It is not physically Australian waste that shall be returned. My impression from the way our legal obligation is described by the Commonwealth is that there is a neat package of reprocessed fuel and waste sitting in France labelled ‘Australia’, and that will be returned to us in 2011. This is simply not true. What we get back will be a proportion of the by-product of spent fuel from every country that sends its waste to France for reprocessing, divided between the contributing countries. Each country of origin of the waste will receive a proportion of different elements from the reprocessing of the fuel. The main elements are:
vitrified fission product which is high level waste;
Under the agreement, uranium separated during the process will not be returned to Australia but will stay in France. However, the plutonium contained in the spent fuel will be returned to ANSTO and included in the returned waste. We will have a neat package of plutonium marked ‘Australia’.
Let me repeat the important points:
after reprocessing, COGEMA, now AREVA, gets ownership of the recovered uranium;
ANSTO in Australia gets back generic waste generated from the global reprocessing activities at the La Hague facility in France;
La Hague reprocesses a diversity of source materials, much from Russia, but certainly from all over; and
the waste returned to Australia includes waste generated from all these sources, including plutonium.
This facility will not simply be a waste dump, it will also be a plutonium dump. What else would they do with it? Most waste returning to Australia will be of the first two types – the vitrified fission products and the compacted residues. They come in two separate types of containers with different storage requirements. The fact that one of the main components of the waste to be returned to Australia is vitrified fission products should give us all cause to stop and consider why the Commonwealth continues to tell us that we are worrying about nothing; that all we are dealing with in our nuclear dump is low- or intermediate-level waste.
VFP is high-level waste in anyone’s language, and classified as such internationally. It requires long-term specific storage, and not just in bunkers on the surface or trenches near the surface. At best, it requires a final disposal solution. It needs specific disposal, specific sites and, probably, specific legislation. The French government, after 15 years of research, has not yet come up with its final disposable solutions for high-level waste. However, our national government thinks it just can pick a site in the Northern Territory, do a bit of desktop research and start plonking radioactive waste on it. I firmly believe that the Australian government is at best rushing, in an ill-informed way, into establishing a nuclear waste dump to fulfill contractual obligations. At worst, it is misleading the Australian public about what is to be stored, what the legal requirements are in terms of the international contract, and what the necessary safety and security standards should be.
I will be proposing to the Australian government that they employ an international expert to properly analyse the situation; the contract between ANSTO and COGEMA; the legal uncertainties and obligations; and all the questions which have impact on the nature of the storage and disposal facilities required. This analysis is essential to allow us to identify areas of concern for Australian authorities.
It is not good enough for the Australian government to simply pick a site, build a bunker, stick all the government’s nuclear waste on a truck, and transport it through many communities across 3000 km or by ship around the coast, and through our harbour to offload it. This approach to managing our nuclear waste is amateurish and dangerous, and makes us a laughing stock compared to other countries.
Let us compare this sorry process with two countries which take seriously their obligations for final disposal of nuclear waste.
I will start with France. It was vital that I heard all sides of the nuclear waste debate, and not focus simply on one element of the argument. I met with the Director of CEA, France’s Atomic Energy Commisariat, and was given a tour of the Orphee nuclear reactor, one of the research reactors operated by the CEA. I also met with the head of ANDRA, France’s National Radioactive Waste Management Agency. The first thing that struck me was the honesty and openness of all of the officials I met, up to the highest level of government and industry - none of the secrecy or obstruction that we face here in trying to find out how the Commonwealth has made its decision.
I spent several fascinating hours in discussion with the helpful and informative Business Manager and Head of International Affairs with ANDRA. They explained the complexities of defining nuclear waste. It certainly is not as simple as dividing stuff up into low-, intermediate- and high-level waste and assigning the risk accordingly. There is, in fact, a matrix of classification, a system that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative criteria, which should determine different management solutions. Low-level and intermediate-level waste, for example, will need different disposal solutions depending on whether it is a short lived - that is, less than 30 years - or long lived. Low-level short lived waste - or A waste - can be accommodated in a surface disposal facility. Low-level, long lived waste - or B waste - can possibly be dealt with by long-term storage rather than final disposal. ANDRA has determined that the high-level waste, either short or long lived - or C waste - needs final disposal. Long-term storage is not acceptable. It also requires final disposal for intermediate-level but long-lived waste.
France is still struggling with finding its ‘final disposal solution’ and, in the meantime, is continuing with long-term storage. It is doing long-term investigations on the potential sites for final disposal in different geologies, as it is required to do under legislation. A key finding of research carried out by the CEA is that ‘long-term storage is not a definite solution and cannot replace disposal’.
The CEA lists a number of key factors for successful waste disposal. They are: clear and stable regulations and acceptance process; clear and stable prices; available and adequate funding; coordination between waste producers and storage/disposal operators; experience sharing; and communication and transparency. Not a single one of these key factors is being met by the Commonwealth - not a single one.
I turn now to Finland and their quest for a final disposal solution for their nuclear waste. Finnish law requires nuclear waste generated in Finland to be disposed of in Finland. It prohibits waste generated elsewhere to be handled, stored or disposed in Finland. Under the Nuclear Energy Act in Finland construction of a nuclear facility of considerable great significance, which includes waste repositories, requires a government decision-in-principle that the project is in line with the overall good of society.
Before the decision-in-principle, there must be a publicly available full description of the facility, an environmental impact statement, and safety statement. I quote a translation of Finland’s Nuclear Energy Act:
There is more, and let us bear in mind that all this has to happen under Finnish law before an in-principle decision to build a waste facility has been made. Again I quote from their Nuclear Energy Act.
When all the processes for making the decision-in-principle have been completed, it has to be forwarded to parliament for final decision.
From what I have seen and heard, the Finnish approach to nuclear waste management would have to define the term ‘best practice’ in terms of legislative requirement, public process, and sheer technical expertise.
The emphasis has been on thorough long-term planning and preparation, and community involvement. As early as 1983, the Finnish government had a policy decision on objectives and schedules for a national waste management program -the producers of nuclear waste are fully responsible for waste management and its costs. Thus, the price of electricity in Finland generated by nuclear power includes the cost of nuclear waste management. When calculating the cost of waste management, the cost of decommissioning the power plants is also included. If the present plants run for 40 years, the total cost of nuclear waste management in Finland will be about €2000m, or about $A3.2bn.
There is a national waste management fund under the Ministry of Trade and Industry which collects payments from the producers of nuclear waste. The fund’s present holdings are about €1400m, which fully covers the liabilities related to the future management of nuclear waste.
I fully accept that this situation is vastly different from Australia where we do not have nuclear power generation. However, the lesson here is the need for thorough planning, for long-term vision and commitment, and for appropriate resourcing for the best possible facility. Yet, in the few days since I wrote these words, it seems Australia could, indeed, be heading for a nuclear power generation industry. Only yesterday, John Howard was quoted in The Australian as saying:
The clear inference from this is that the Northern Territory waste dump is being designed to take all Australian nuclear waste, including from a planned nuclear power generation industry. This will have huge implications for the volumes of waste to be stored. Again, we are destined to be overridden. What price statehood, Mr Acting Speaker? The Commonwealth seems set on re-badging us - not us the Northern Territory but the nuclear Territory.
Finland has been preparing for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel for 25 years. Site selection for nuclear waste began in 1983, with more than 100 candidate sites identified by 1985. Site investigations and characterisations took place from 1986 to 1992, producing a short list of four possible sites. They underwent detailed assessments from 1993 to 2000. In 2000, the government made the decision-in-principle to develop a site at Olkiluoto on the south-west coast adjacent to the power plant. The rationale for selecting the final site was based on the site evaluation and mainly stable geology, but another important reason was that the project had been fully accepted by the local community as part of their future development strategy.
Unlike the process we are being confronted with for site selection by the Australian government, the local community in Finland must formally accept the proposal to have a nuclear facility in their municipality. The local authority has the power of veto over whether a nuclear facility can be established. In this case, the local authority voted 20 for and seven against the waste facility. The government of Finland encourages and embraces consultation. It does not shy away from it or shroud its processes in secrecy.
Following the decision-in-principle to establish a site for geological disposal of all nuclear waste at Olkiluoto, a company was established, Posiva, which is owned by the two companies that generate electricity from nuclear power plants. Posiva has to implement the final disposal of spent fuel from all power plants. The first stage in constructing the final disposal facility is to construct an underground facility. This facility, known as ONKALO, is a small-scale trial of the final disposal facility of which it will ultimately become a part. When I say small scale, I mean only in comparison with the completed version. It is a very impressive facility; almost awe-inspiring.
I was privileged to be shown around ONKALO, now under construction. It comprises a system of access tunnels and ventilation shafts drilled into the granite to a finished depth of minus-500 m where the waste will be finally stored in a series of shafts or caves, dependant on the type of waste. The facility is currently constructed down to 95 m and, even at that level, it is quite mind-blowing. Walking down the access tunnels deeper into the bedrock and emerging into huge, very high-tech caverns fully equipped with remote devices to move and store pods of waste is an experience which will stick in my mind.
The ONKALO characterisation facility will be completed in 2010, with monitoring and investigations on its performance being undertaken throughout. Once ONKALO and its investigations have been completed, work will start on the construction of the final disposal repository, of which ONKALO will operate as the first element.
A number of things struck me as a result of my visit and they spell out useful, even vital, messages for our federal government. As I said, I am well aware that the situation in this country regarding volumes of nuclear waste is in a completely different category from France and Finland, at least whilst we have no nuclear power generation in this country, but we could learn a lot from how it is done elsewhere.
The messages I want to convey are:
commit to long-term planning to getting it right from the beginning, and for many generations into the future;
In Finland and France, nothing appears to be hidden and the mistakes are admitted. The French officials were quite frank with us that they wasted a few years by not realising the importance of local communities and public sentiment. In Finland, far from hiding the fact that a final nuclear waste storage facility is being built not far from Pori, a town of 76 000 people, they get the community on board and arrange and allow bus tours to visit the site.
I feel we are being short-changed by our federal government in the way they are dealing with Australia’s nuclear waste disposal issues. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s legislation requires that, in relation to any facility licensing, the CEO must ‘take into account international best practice in relation to radioaction protection and nuclear safety’. I submit that this is not happening.
Short of flushing our waste out to sea, Australia appears to be rushing towards international worst practice. The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management recently submitted a report to the UK government. One of its key findings was that the radioactive waste is a social problem as much as a technical one. It is no different here, and the government would do well to heed that message. The Commonwealth government has already unilaterally decided that Australia will have a single nuclear waste disposal facility for Commonwealth waste and that it will be in the Northern Territory.
While I reaffirm my opposition to that decision, and will continue to oppose it, I am more deeply offended by the way in which the decision has been made and is being implemented. The process is deeply flawed. It leaves us exposed to the possibility that we end up with an inappropriate, ill-planned facility, not up to the long-term or final storage of the waste we may end up with, in the wrong location.
The Commonwealth government, in my view, needs to take a deep breath and step back; learn the lessons from other countries about how to get right the siting and operation of a nuclear waste facility, and decide whether it is for long-term storage or final disposal. We may not have much in the way of nuclear waste relative to other countries, but that is not reason enough to make us accept a flawed decision and be comfortable with it.
Australia needs a well-planned and publicly accepted final storage solution for its waste. This temporary tinkering is not it.
Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion relating to the statement.
Leave granted.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the statement be noted and that –
(1) The Assembly demand the Commonwealth government:
(d) commit to a clear, open and transparent scientific process for determining the best storage or disposal solution for nuclear waste; and
(e) respect the sovereignty of the Northern Territory and this parliament;
(2) The Assembly condemns the Commonwealth government for misleading the people of Australia about the type and source of nuclear waste to be returned to Australia.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, we were wondering what government was going to do, because it seemed like a quiet day at the office for this government. They have come up with this motion in order to get stuck into the politics of this issue. Whilst I understand that, you have now, by delivering this motion, answered the question.
I am a little disappointed. I listened in silence to the minister’s statement and I have a prepared response. It seems to me that Territorians are likely to read this Parliamentary Record, perhaps more than lots of other issues, so it is important that we, as their parliamentarians, provide both sides of the debate. We encourage our fellow Territorians to read it. I ask that the minister extend the same sort of courtesy to me in my response.
I note with interest that the Attorney-General said yesterday in relation to the gang laws that he thought - it was on Channel 9, I think – that if some people were being really critical and thought the laws were terrible, and another bunch of people thought that the laws were really good, then the bit in the middle probably means that it is, on balance, okay. I use that analogy, if you like, so that Territorians reading this Parliamentary Record can read the minister and the Labor Party’s position. Similarly, they can read our position. No doubt, the Independents will have something to say as well. With those comments, I will read from my prepared statement.
Before reading the statement, I should remind members of the motion that we agreed to with the government a year or so ago, I suppose, in this House that we, as Territorians - like Labor members - were unhappy with the way in which the Commonwealth went about saying that we would, as Territorians, have this facility. I remind members that this parliament has, as one, been of like mind - all of us have been of like mind in relation to the threshold issue; that is, the conduct of the Commonwealth leading up to the announcement.
However, that was necessary because both the Western Australia and South Australian governments should have, in our view, pushed much harder to hold up the original 1992 agreement instead of playing politics with this matter. It is inevitable, I suppose, that that happens, but it was terribly unfortunate, to say the least, that both the Western Australians and South Australians did not go harder in respect of the 1992 agreement. Unfortunately, in the Territory what we have seen pretty much since then is the Chief Minister playing politics with it.
The fact remains that it is somewhat disingenuous to make the statement that the Commonwealth has not provided details in respect of what is happening. The then minister, Brendan Nelson, wrote to the Chief Minister - I have a copy of that letter - on 15 July outlining what was happening in respect of the waste facility and, in doing so, set out a standing offer for a briefing on the issue. I am advised that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has had one briefing, and the minister who authored today’s statement has had none. Yet, we have the contents of the statement which Labor is asking Territorians to accept holus-bolus, it seems to me, without herself receiving a briefing - notwithstanding your trip overseas.
The fact remains that the site was identified in South Australia, and it was not the Commonwealth government’s first choice to come to the Territory. However, now that the Chief Minister has failed to even try to convince them to change their mind, she wants to continue to play politics with this issue. The process of finding the site started with a Labor federal government and was continued under a Coalition government. I say that again: the process of finding a site started with a Labor federal government and was continued under a Coalition government.
What was a bipartisan approach, free of politics, was destroyed by the South Australian Labor government. It seemed to us and, indeed, many other people, that if the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory carried any weight at all, she would have done her best to persuade Mike Rann to do the decent thing and have the site in South Australia. I cannot recall any public comments that our Chief Minister has made regarding the efforts, if any, she has made, or she did make, with Mike Rann. I am not even sure whether she picked up the phone. I believe that is a question that the average Territorian would like an answer to.
None of us liked the fact that we will have a facility forced upon us; however, it has happened and it is worth noting that, in the process, significant benefits were garnered for the Territory by the CLP federal members. It should also be remembered that the passing of the bill was also supported by Family First Senators and Australian Democrat Senators.
Some of the contents of the statement remind me of the way Labor has conducted itself on the McArthur River issue - trying on the one hand to placate left wingers and, then, on the other trying to sell themselves as friends of business. I am fairly certain that that is a difficult issue for members in the Labor Party and I can understand why.
However, we have now seen the Chief Minister softening her position and talking about needing to be a process based on science. I saw the interview, and I was not surprised, because we knew that she would soften her position. That was inevitable; not unlike her position with respect to uranium. We have seen a softening and you would like to think that the Chief Minister - notwithstanding the contents of the statement and previous utterances - and her colleagues now accept that the facility is going to be here; therefore, how then do we, as Territorians, maximise any benefits that that opportunity presents? In any event, it is interesting to see the Chief Minister changing some ground.
Some parts of the statement are, I believe, designed to engender fear, and continues to cast this Chief Minister and some of her colleagues in a pretty duplicitous way; that is, saying one thing and doing another. Territorians just want you to be honest and, no doubt, you have learned from the McArthur River experience - maybe not.
However, the minister went to some lengths to provide what she would call as much information as possible. So that those reading this Parliamentary Record can have the other side of the argument, I now present some following facts.
The plutonium, the reprocessing waste as a whole, is considered intermediate waste. However, if it was on its own it would be classified as a low-level waste. Reprocessing sees the uranium removed from the fuel rod and this leaves a small percentage of fission products. The radioactivity contained within this product is not as a result of the plutonium but, instead, is a result of the other tiny percentage content of the other fission waste products. The total volume of what is being returned in reprocessing waste is about 33 m, which is as a result of the fact that there is packaging and the waste is returned encased in cement or in a glass format. The actual volume of waste is, I am advised, less than 1 m.
It is also seriously disingenuous to make statements such as ‘Australia’s highest grade waste’ when the minister surely knows that the difference between an intermediate- and low-level waste facility and a high-level waste facility are enormous. The minister must also know that legislation was passed in the federal parliament which precludes the housing of high-level waste.
In 1992, the then federal Labor government commenced a national siting process to find a site for a repository for low-level radioactive waste. The siting process was commenced with the support of all state and territory governments. The siting program was continued by the Coalition upon gaining government in 1996. The result of the siting program was the selection of three sites in the central north of South Australia. Research conducted by DEST in South Australia showed that more people supported the concept of a national repository in South Australia than were opposed to it. Despite this, the South Australian Labor government, reneging on the original 1992 agreement, took legal action that, ultimately, prevented the Australian government from constructing the repository at the desired location.
I wonder whether Mike Rann was a Cabinet minister in the South Australian Labor government in 1992, and I think he was. Presumably, he was involved in the national siting process, and it was certainly dishonest of him to then turn around and play politics, especially with the knowledge he must have had. If my memory serves me correctly, I am pretty sure he was a Cabinet minister, but I stand to be corrected.
In any event, as a result of the intransigence of state and territory governments, in July 2004, the Prime Minister announced that a radioactive waste facility would be constructed on existing Commonwealth land either onshore or offshore for radioactive waste. That was the announcement that he made in 2004, and it was a result of the intransigence of state and territory governments.
Prior to the 2004 federal election, only offshore sites were being considered by DEST, the Department of Education, Science and Training. Senator Campbell’s comments were, therefore, correct at the time they were made. When it became clear that no offshore territories had both suitable elevation and infrastructure, the attention of DEST turned to onshore sites. As the majority of Commonwealth land is managed by the Department of Defence, potential sites were chosen with due consideration to Defence’s operational needs. It is for that reason that three sites in the Northern Territory were selected.
I refer to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act of 2005. It provides that any state or territory legislation purporting to prevent the Commonwealth constructing a radioactive facility in accordance with – I seem to have lost a page. Forgive me, Mr Acting Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: In any event, I am sure that the minister has an appreciation of the federal legislation.
I am sorry members on the other side are getting antsy, and I am sorry that reasoned and considered debates are so difficult for you to swallow. However, it being my democratic right, I am going to press on. If you do not like it, not to put too fine a point on it, you know where to go - and by that I mean into the lobby.
The Commonwealth has legislation. I suspect those who were mumbling before have not even looked at it. They should. Indeed, instead of just swallowing the minister’s or Chief Minister’s line, they should do their own independent research.
In terms of the type of waste to be managed at the facility, the Australian government has been completely open in stating the nature of the waste to be managed at the waste facility – this government will accuse them of many things but, indeed, they have always been very open about it. The letter to which I referred earlier of 15 July to the Chief Minister from the previous federal minister, Brendan Nelson, stated
They have been up-front about that, regarding the type of facility.
The Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility will manage low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste generated by Commonwealth departments and agencies. Depending on the site chosen, low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste will be either disposed of in a near surface repository or stored in a purpose-built storage building or buildings. The current site characterisation studies will determine the suitability or otherwise of the three potential sites chosen to host the nuclear waste repository.
Should a repository be built and licensed, the final decision on what waste may be disposed of will be made by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency when licensing the facility. Any other waste will be stored.
This is a debate where I am sure members from Labor will give it their all. It is unfortunate that the government is playing politics with it. There is a federal election around the corner. I have a hunch that we will see many more statements like this, and we will see Territory ministers pretending they are behind Bomber Beazley and to be Commonwealth representatives until the federal election.
For my part, I hope the election comes sooner rather than later. If we have to wait for another 10 or 11 months seeing this government come in with federal issues and statements and doing their best to look and sound like budding federal politicians, then it will become very boring and will not directly serve the interests of Territorians.
It is somewhat ironic that, on the same day this statement is provided, there is a statement on chronic diseases. I would like to think even the most ignorant and stupid Labor member would acknowledge that there are benefits in nuclear medicine. I wonder whether, in the contribution to this debate, anyone on the Labor side will make that concession or acknowledgment - I think not.
The Northern Land Council has shown more leadership on this issue than the Chief Minister and her merry band of men and women. The Northern Land Council worked out fairly early on that it was inevitable we were going to have this repository, because the Labor states, about which I have spoken, did not do the right thing. The Northern Land Council looked at it and wanted to get involved. I am not sure that they necessarily warmly embrace uranium or nuclear energy, but they did see an opportunity and they wanted to get involved. That is unlike this government which, unfortunately, will continue to play politics with this issue up until the next election. I do not believe that is serving the interests of Territorians or indigenous Territorians, and the Northern Land Council has demonstrated more leadership than this Chief Minister.
Perhaps that is why the likes of the member for Millner issued his memo, and why the likes of the member for Macdonnell, apparently reportedly, leaked the memo to the National Indigenous Times, and why someone leaked some documents on indigenous issues to The Age newspaper a day or so ago. Maybe people see this Chief Minister failing on indigenous issues as clearly as we do.
I am obliged to look to the statement, which is difficult to consider, given that I have received it whilst I have been on my feet, therefore, it is necessary for me to read it so I can get through it. I see that the minister has demanded that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate a nuclear waste dump - there is that word again as opposed to repository, interestingly; confirm that the waste which Australia will receive from France includes – oh yes, right - (c) cease all action to establish a nuclear waste – well, how ridiculous is that; commit to a right, blah, blah, blah, and (e) blah, blah, blah.
Mr Acting Speaker, I will comment on this and, of course, I have not even had the benefit of speaking to my colleagues. However, I am going to go out on a limb on this one - no pun intended, member for Greatorex. I am going to say that this motion does not even deserve my time.
Debate suspended.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of Parliament House tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, I certainly support my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, on her statement about the Commonwealth government’s proposal to build a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the minister, and I have spoken to her personally about this. The statement she made today is probably one of the best statements that I have heard in this House from a minister. The minister has personally undertaken research during her visit to France and Finland to look at the true story, the hidden story, behind the Commonwealth government’s proposal to foist a nuclear waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory in total disregard of an election commitment that the Commonwealth government made prior to the last federal election.
There really is an untold story, which has been told now because the minister has told it, of the devious way the Commonwealth government has sought to mislead Territorians, to lie to Territorians. Senator Ian Campbell, prior to the last election, made a categorical commitment and promise that a nuclear waste dump for Australia would not be built in the Northern Territory. Territorians were also misled about the type of nuclear waste that is to be dumped in the Northern Territory.
We heard from the minister in her statement that not only will the dump contain nuclear waste that is generated as part of day-to-day industrial processes in the Northern Territory through our medical system as well our industrial system, and reprocessed material from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney, but also this nuclear waste dump is going to contain nuclear waste that has been generated from countries overseas, including Russia - and not only being low- to medium-level nuclear waste, but high-level waste including plutonium.
This is not what the Commonwealth government has told the people of the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth government is treating the Territory like second-class citizens - I would say third-class citizens. It is absolutely reprehensible that the Commonwealth government has introduced legislation into the parliament in Canberra that overrides laws passed in this Assembly which do not provide Territorians with any judicial review in respect of administrative processes. It is a shame on the once proud Country Liberal Party that their members in the House of Representatives and in the Senate did not stand up for the Territory and oppose that legislation which overrides this House.
It has been a sad period for the body politic in the Northern Territory that we could not stand together in this House and have our representatives for the Territory in Canberra stand side by side and oppose legislation introduced into the federal parliament. That denies the right of this duly elected Assembly here to pass our own laws, even worse, denies Territorians and this Assembly the capacity for judicial review in regard to decisions made in Canberra that affect the Northern Territory. It is a blatant attack on the Territory’s Self-Government Act.
I am predicting that the CLP will be gone from the Northern Territory in 12 months time. The Liberal Party is going to come in here and take over. The once proud Country Liberal Party would have stood shoulder to shoulder with other representatives in Canberra and said, irregardless of what the policy issue is, for the federal parliament to pass laws that denies the rights of Territorians, through our own duly elected representatives, to make their own laws in the Territory and, even worse, not allow Territorians the right to judicial review that every other Australian takes for granted, is absolutely reprehensible.
For those members, David Tollner and Nigel Scullion, not to say boo in regard to this assault on the Territory is a desertion of the people of the Northern Territory. The likes of Paul Everingham, Marshall Perron, Steve Hatton, Daryl Manzie - whom I respect - and Ian Tuxworth, who was in here the other day, would be shaking their heads in disbelief that the current CLP would just allow Territorians to be run roughshod over by the Commonwealth.
That is in regard to what has happened. We have moved a motion, which is an opportunity for those opposite to speak up and show to Territorians - in this Assembly where they are elected by the people of the Northern Territory - that they support this motion and demand that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. If they are not prepared to stand up in here today and support the government in this call, then the opposition has an absolute responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory, if they are going to support the siting of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory that is not only going to contain low-level radioactive waste generated through medical and industrial processes in Australia, but it will also see us import high-level radioactive waste, including plutonium, from countries overseas.
It was announced by the Prime Minister and the Resources minister a couple of days ago that they believe there is going to be nuclear power generated in Australia in the next 10 years; therefore, we will also see waste from the nuclear power industry dumped here. If the opposition believes that type of industry is one we should be supporting in the Territory, then they have a responsibility to tell Territorians where they think this waste dump should go.
At the moment, we know the Commonwealth government is considering three sites, two in Central Australia, and one in the Katherine region. Members opposite have a responsibility to tell Territorians which of those three sites they support this nuclear waste dump being constructed in. We know people in Central Australia, and Alice Springs in particular, are vehemently against the siting of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. We have two members of the opposition who represent seats in Alice Springs, the members for Greatorex and Araluen. They have a responsibility to stand in this parliament today and support the government in this motion, rejecting the Commonwealth government imposing a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. I really hope they do that.
If they cannot see fit to do that, then they have a responsibility to tell their constituents, the people of Alice Springs, whether they support a nuclear waste dump being sited in Central Australia. If that is what they do, well, that is what they do. They are elected by the people of Central Australia; they have a responsibility to say what they support. If they do not support the nuclear waste dump being sited in Central Australia, then they must support it being sited in the Katherine region, because these are the three sites that are being considered by the Commonwealth government.
I urge members opposite to think very seriously about this statement and this motion, because it is a critical issue for the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth government has certainly misled Territorians; it has deceived Territorians. It has not told Territorians the truth about the nature and the type of waste to be dumped here in the Northern Territory, for the only reason - not the best science in Australia, but because, constitutionally, we are the easiest mark and the weakest link. The Commonwealth government really has done a huge disservice to the people of the Northern Territory. The government is not going to stand by and let Territorians be hoodwinked, misled, and lied to by the Commonwealth government in regard to what their intentions are for dumping this nuclear waste in the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the minister for the Environment and the member for Arafura, has investigated regarding the research that she has conducted, the people that she has spoken to - particularly in France, but also in Finland - about exactly what the contractual arrangement is between the Commonwealth of Australia and the French government. The legal uncertainties that belie the Australian waste that is currently stored in France, is a story that the Commonwealth government of Australia has not told the people of the Northern Territory, and it is absolutely outrageous.
I urge members opposite to think long and hard about supporting this motion. I encourage them to support this motion, because I can say to members opposite that, if they do not support this motion here today, the people of Alice Springs will hear about it long, loud and hard from the government. It will be in every letterbox in Central Australia and Alice Springs. It will be in people’s letterboxes over and over again saying how the members for Greatorex and Araluen support the Commonwealth government’s intention to dump high-level radioactive waste, including plutonium, and including from countries overseas, in the beautiful part of the world which is Central Australia.
Mr Acting Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and the motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, if the member for Wanguri accuses the federal government of lying, I suppose I can accuse this government of lying as well. This statement is pure fabrication - fear tried to be put through as if this was a genuine statement. The minister opened her comments with:
Emotional words.
Equally, I could say that the basement of the Royal Darwin Hospital houses the Northern Territory’s highest grade nuclear waste. Yet, not one member opposite is worried about that. That is the sort of intellectual dishonesty of this government, accusing anybody about this nuclear waste facility.
The nuclear waste facility has been on the books in the country since 1992. It was a project initiated by the then federal Labor government and agreed to by the then Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Bob Collins, who became a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments. It was a project formulated with the agreement of all states and territories and the federal government of the day that they would undertake a study to identify the best locations in Australia for a nuclear waste facility. These governments, including the government of South Australia, all agreed on best practice, best research, that it was to be in the northern parts of South Australia. The current Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, was then a Cabinet minister in the South Australia Labor government in 1992. He was part of that decision, yet he had the temerity to bring through legislation in the South Australian parliament to obstruct the appropriate way of developing a nuclear waste facility in the northern part of South Australia.
Where else can the Commonwealth government look for land to develop the facility but elsewhere than South Australia? The fact that they have identified three locations in the Northern Territory is because of the land that the Commonwealth has in their possession. But do you know what? This Labor government, in the fear that it is trying to generate within people in the Territory, refuses to understand that even the Northern Land Council is more interested than they are in considering …
Mr Wood: They did not get a mention.
Dr LIM: … the value … No, they did not get - I pick up the interjection from the member for Nelson – the Northern Land Council did not even get a mention by this minister in her statement. The Northern Land Council has more vision and foresight to explore the benefits that this may potentially bring to the people that they represent.
The minister gets up and says: ‘I have done a great lot of research on this matter and so has the member for Wanguri’. Oh, well done, minister. You have done such a great lot of research. You went all the way to France and Finland to do that. She could not get enough energy to go all the way to Lucas Heights in her back door to have a look, but she could do that in France and Finland. Do you know what, minister? In the 24 hours you spent in the aircraft going from Australia to France and Finland and back you have been exposed to more radiation than you would get standing in the middle of a nuclear waste facility that is being proposed for this country.
That is what happened. You have been exposed to more radiation in your trip to France …
Ms Scrymgour: Run the spin for your …
Mr Wood: No, your spin is in your statement.
Ms Scrymgour: We know where your alliances lie.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: And that is where you have been solely dishonest about the whole …
Mr Wood: At least I had a Iook at Lucas Heights.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson and I have both visited Lucas Heights and discussed it with the scientists at ANSTO. We have seen for ourselves what a waste facility would be like and what is proposed for Australia - nothing as fearful as you have tried to generate in this debate. Then the minister spoke about COGEMA and what COGEMA has done. I put the question: does the French Supreme Court decision jeopardise contractual arrangements with COGEMA to process spent fuel from ANSTO? Let me give the answer, minister: your research is wrong.
Ms Scrymgour: I did. I put it in my speech.
Dr LIM: Your research is wrong. The answer is this: the decision of the French Supreme Court to uphold a previous judgment of the Cannes Court of Appeal on reprocessing of a shipment of high-class spent fuel would have no practical effect. The judgment confirms the earlier decision that in the absence of an authorisation to reprocess the storage of foreign spent fuel on French soil contravenes French law. This will have no impact on reprocessing HIFAR spent fuel in France as an authorisation to reprocess that fuel has been issued by the French regulator.
COGEMA began to reprocess the HIFAR spent fuel in June 2005 - there will be no further shipments of spent fuel from ANSTO to France until 2024 - and ANSTO still has firm contractual arrangements with COGEMA for reprocessing spent fuel from HIFAR and the OPAL reactor. There has been no change in French government policy concerning COGEMA’s reprocessing activities. In response to this court action, it is expected the necessary authorisations would be obtained to enable future shipments to take place.
That is the truth, minister. I suggest that you do your research properly and report to this parliament properly. Do not tell us things that are not true.
In case the minister is not certain about the answer that has been provided by COGEMA, I can give her some background. In 1999, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, signed a contract with COGEMA for the reprocessing of all non-US-origin spent fuel used in HIFAR at Lucas Heights. Four shipments of spent fuel were made in 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2004.
In March, I understand Greenpeace successfully obtained an injunction preventing the unloading of a spent fuel shipment. Greenpeace contended that French law prevented the long-term storage in France of overseas origin radioactive waste. As COGEMA intended to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel as a single batch, it had, at the time, obtained only an authorisation to store ANSTO’s spent fuel. An appeal court rescinded the injunction, allowing the shipment to be unloaded, but returned the case to the lower court for full resolution.
In February 2003, the lower court ruled that although COGEMA did not yet hold an authorisation to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel, the fuel could not be considered waste as it was merely destined for reprocessing. Greenpeace subsequently appealed this ruling. In April 2005, the appeal court ruled that as COGEMA did not have the necessary authorisation to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel, the fuel was being stored illegally. However, on 9 June, a COGEMA media release announced that the General Directorate of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection had issued the outstanding operational authorisation on 29 May 2005.
That is the truth of the matter. I suggest the minister be truthful in the information she wants to provide to Territorians. This is a federal issue that has been beaten up by this government to try to continue to produce negative impacts on the potential federal election in the near future.
The issue about the waste facility is that it is going to store low-level waste and to temporarily store medium-level waste. There is no intention of dealing with the waste, as the minister suggested in her statement, with final disposal of radioactive waste in Australia.
Mr Stirling: But it was all going to be low-level waste originally.
Dr LIM: No such thing ever. Even in the minister’s statement, when she went to France and Finland, there has been no decision made by those countries which have a greater nuclear industry. No decisions had been made about final disposal of any waste. Do not come in here and tell us about final disposal when, in fact, there is none.
Unless this government is honest, there will be no open debate in the Territory. All you are doing is causing an environment where no one is properly informed about what is happening. Let us put all the information out there. Let us stop politicising it. Let us stop taking political positions because you are philosophically opposed to the uranium and nuclear industries. Let us stop doing that and look more closely at the issue of providing good, honest information for Territorians. The scare tactic does not do you, as the government, any good.
The minister talked about the federal government taking the land away from them. You know, without a skerrick of doubt, that the federal government cannot just take land away from indigenous people - not land that they have already owned and have converted to inalienable ownership. There has to be just compensation for any acquisition of property rights. Why did the minister not explain clearly what it is about instead of giving half-truths that are planned to try to polarise people?
The CLP, on behalf of the Northern Territory, just like the government, said that they did not want to have a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. However, having said that, we also recognise that the decision has been made because of the South Australian legislative actions, and the cowardly actions of all the other states and territories not to pressure South Australia to accept a nuclear waste site. All Labor state and territory governments fail Australians in not pressuring South Australia to abide by the agreement made in the 1990s. You all failed Australians ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: All Labor governments in every state and territory should have pressured Mike Rann to not go through that legislative avenue because all it does is create …
Mr Stirling: You stand with Scullion in Alice Springs and tell them where it is going. That is all you have to do.
Dr LIM: You can blame the CLP if you like, but seriously, what you have done …
Mr Henderson: Scullion could have stopped the bill.
Dr LIM: The minister says in a statement, ‘we will not have any judicial review once the decision is made’. The Territory’s own legislation does exactly that. You tell people to fence their swimming pools and there is no judicial review. What is the difference? You do that. You cannot then tell the Commonwealth government ‘you cannot do that’. What is good for one has to be good for the other.
Mr Henderson: A poor apologist for the Country Liberal Party member.
Mr Stirling: Yes, a once proud Country Liberal Party that stood for the …
Dr LIM: And we are still proud. At least we can stand up and hold our heads up high. We can hold our heads up high and say we are at least intellectually honest and truthful to our beliefs. You have compromised your very core beliefs, promises that you have made with all your fellow Labor governments, and now you renege on everything, and then politicise it for your own ends.
What have you done to ensure that proper debate occurs in the Northern Territory? You have done nothing, absolutely nothing. At least I checked out Lucas Heights and studied it …
Ms Anderson: So did we.
Dr LIM: I pick up that interjection from the member for Macdonnell. ‘So did we’, she says. Having a look at Lucas Heights means walking through it, spending several hours studying it, looking at it for yourself - not standing outside the fence and saying: ‘Oh, we have visited Lucas Heights’. That is, again, intellectually dishonest.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex, can you pause for a moment. There is far too much interjection from members who do not have the floor.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, I believe that the decision is made, and we should now make the best of this - turn it to our advantage. That is what the Northern Land Council is doing.
Fine that you want to bury your head in the dirt and say: ‘I cannot see you so you cannot see me’. Well, your backside is still exposed; I tell you that. The reality is that we are talking about nuclear waste that has, at the moment, minimal impact on the environment - waste that is generated necessarily for many reasons, including industrial as well as medical reasons. We need that, therefore, we need to address that properly.
We know that there is technology available such as concrete and glass rock that will be able to encase much of the medium-level waste in safety …
Mr Kiely: What sort of waste is it?
Dr LIM: … to be stored in temporary bases until such time as technology is advanced enough to deal with that sort of waste ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Dr LIM: All the interjections that we get from people like the member for Sanderson is because they come from a position of no information. Go find out for yourselves! Expose yourself to the information. Do not hide behind the fact that you are ignorant and, therefore, do not know and can say the things you want to say …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! I believe referring to other members as ignorant is completely unsatisfactory in this House.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask that you direct your comments to me, please in future.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to point of order, I ask that the member for Greatorex withdraw that comment about ignorance.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, we know …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, would you …
Dr LIM: Members can try to waste my time, to ensure that our views are not being heard …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson, and I will take this point of order.
Dr LIM: What was the point of order? That I said that members …
Mr KIELY: Standing Order 262, I think it is, where you are being offensive.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson. Member for Greatorex …
Dr LIM: My comment was that ...
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Would you like to withdraw that on your own volition?
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, let me speak to the point of order, if I may then - and I am wasting my time here. The point of order is that I said that people prefer to hide in their ignorance by not keeping themselves informed. That is not saying that the member is ignorant …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! That is not the case at all.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Millner, please sit down; he is speaking to a point of order.
Dr LIM: All I was saying is that calling …
Mr MILLS: Can I interject with another point of order? I seek an extension for the member’s time so he can get out of this dreadful mess; so he can finish his comments. I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 so he can finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: Thank you very much, Mr Acting Speaker.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: You are on the point of order still.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, by saying that members continue to stay in ignorant bliss of information so that they can get up and speak …
Mr Bonson: That is not what you said. Do not change what the Parliamentary Record is going to show.
Dr LIM: … without being fully informed, is pretty silly. If members across the Chamber are offended by the fact that I believe they are being very ignorant by refusing to get information, then I will withdraw. Otherwise, what I am saying is fairly innocuous. Okay, I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker.
Let me get back to the point that people can pretend to be ignorant. If you do not know what you should know, you can speak about the issue without appearing to be saying falsehoods within parliament - that is what it is. I encourage members of government to visit Lucas Heights and see for yourself; explore for yourself, what issues there may be that now concern you. I say to you again that, in the three-hour flight that you would do between Alice Springs and Sydney, or three-and-a-half hour flight between Darwin and Sydney, you would be exposed to more radiation from the sun while you are contained within the fuselage of an aircraft than you would get standing smack in the middle of the storage shed where the low-level wastes are now being stored. You would get less radiation. So do not be fearful of something that you do not know. Go find out. Go find out for yourself.
Ms Lawrie: On the record supporting it.
Dr LIM: When? I support what is now reality. I say to you and to you all: even the Northern Land Council is prepared to explore what you members across the Chamber refuse to do continuously.
Ms Lawrie: What Territorians do not want.
Dr LIM: If you want to …
Mr Wood: Five thousand three hundred and forty - that is one-third of TIO.
Dr LIM: Picking up the interjection from the member for Nelson, fewer than 6000 people on a petition is not funded by the government …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Dr LIM: … about $70 per signature it was - is enough to convince the Northern Territory government that Territorians do not want a nuclear waste facility. The Chief Minister would have to take the petitions to Canberra to say: ‘Look, we do not want it’, then the nearly 6000 signatures we have for the parks handover and the 10 000 or 12 000 for the Palmerston night surgery should convince the government to do a backflip on both of them. But no, they will not, will they? They will not.
We know about the different types of waste that are going to come. Let me say, though, when I read through the minister’s statement and listened to her carefully today, all she has done is provide some half-baked information from France and Finland - information that is not contemporary and provided as half truths to generate more fear for people listening to what she has to say. Let me repeat: the waste facility in the Northern Territory, if it comes, will be for storage of low-level waste; waste such as is stored in the basement of the Royal Darwin Hospital ..
Ms Lawrie: You believe that, do you? They lied to us about it being here in the first place.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker? The minister is now interjecting and calling the Commonwealth liars.
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Dr LIM: The minister ought to withdraw.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: The Royal Darwin Hospital stores low-level waste, which is very much like the low-level waste that will be stored at a nuclear waste facility. That is what it is about. For the time being, intermediate-level waste will be stored for a future time when a decision will be made as to how to deal with that waste. That is the principle of what is going to happen. If government members refuse to understand that or accept that then there is nothing much more I can do.
Using the couple of minutes I have left, let us look at what is going to happen with the spent fuel that is produced by ANSTO. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition got to that stage of her information, but the waste returning from overseas reprocessed by ANSTO’s spent nuclear fuels is long-lived intermediate-level waste, not high-level waste. Nowhere in this debate from the Commonwealth government or from ANSTO has there been any advice that there will be high-level waste stored in this facility. Only the Labor Party and the members opposite continue to bring in this misinformation about high-level waste.
The International Atomic Energy Agency defines high-level radioactive waste as waste with a thermal power greater than 2 kW/m3. That waste is not created in Australia. We do not have any such material in Australia and are not likely to produce any of that in the foreseeable future. The spent fuel reprocessing waste does not exceed this threshold. This is a contractual obligation with the reprocessing companies. For operational considerations, ANSTO’s spent fuel is combined with spent fuel from other reprocessing customers prior to reprocessing. Obviously, that makes a lot of sense; you put it all together and deal with it in bulk. The waste returning to Australia in May, therefore, contains waste generated in other countries. However, the waste returning to Australia will have the same volume and level of radioactivity as though ANSTO’s spent fuel had been reprocessed on its own. No additional waste or waste of higher activity will be returned to Australia.
The plutonium, which is one of the products, will be immobilised with the rest of the reprocessing waste. Therefore, there is no risk of contamination from this waste. The waste arising from spent fuel being reprocessed in the United Kingdom is expected to return to Australia from about 2011.
The December 2005 court ruling against AREVA stated that AREVA’s storage of ANSTO’s spent fuel was illegal as AREVA had not held the necessary authorisations from the French nuclear regulator. I have said before that things have moved up from there and the appropriate authorisation has been provided. Therefore, the minister’s words have been misleading.
There is no danger to Australians, to Territorians, by having the proposed nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. As regards our federal members and their positions, remember that the Democrats and the Family First Senators voted for the bill. If Mr Beazley, the federal Leader of the Opposition, were asked privately how he felt about it, he would say: ‘Yes, we need to have one in Australia. We really do have to have one’. The reality is he cannot say that so he is using this Chamber to try to position the Labor Party. That is hypocritical - very hypocritical. It was a Labor Party federal government that started this project and identified the location. The current Labor Party’s federal leader feels the same way. Unfortunately, he cannot say that publicly. That is the problem. Therefore, they use these puppets to articulate on his behalf, and that is a real shame. We have taken the debate away from information and politicised it, creating a fear campaign.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, George Orwell once said:
That is what we have here today: a grand statement so antinuclear that it was, obviously, written by members of the Socialist Front for the Liberation of the Northern Territory to gain the support of the proletariat whose votes they lost yesterday with the McArthur River Mine approval.
Unfortunately, it is the Labor Party that has made this statement. If you read this, you have to wonder whether one of its main policies is the non-proliferation of science. Labor has no interest in science or in the national interest, although when the national leader spoke about changing the three mines policy, he said it was in the national interest.
Labor NT, of course, agreed with their leader, but when it comes to storage of our radioactive waste - that is, Australian radioactive waste which comes from the production of radioactive isotopes, so necessary in medicine and industry - it cries: ‘Not in my back yard’. Labor has affiliations in all the states who all suffer from a severe case of NIMBY. They all disapprove of the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and know if they can halt the storage facility, they may be able to stop the licensing of the reactor. I say: ‘Too late’. As you can see, once again working against the national interest.
The minister, as you can see from this statement, has travelled overseas, publicly funded, to investigate nuclear facilities, which is a very fine thing to do, but would you not think that if the minister was working in the national interest, she would first visit our own nuclear reactor? No one, except me and the member for Greatorex, has visited this facility. We had the farcical statement during the Senate committee inquiry into the issue of waste disposal by Senator Crossin that other members of parliament had visited Lucas Heights. Yes, two members of the government did, but only standing out the front protesting. They did not go in, and Senator Crossin was not exactly truthful on that issue. Of course, that was all done in the national interest – oh, I mean the Territory’s interest – oh, I mean the ALP’s interest. This whole debate has now become an excuse for antinuclear propaganda to be spewed out by this government under the guise of how offended we are because the Commonwealth has overridden our laws.
The Commonwealth has overridden our laws because we have a bunch of self-interested and parochial state and territory leaders who do not want to work in the national interest; it would not be to their political advantage. The reason we have three sites in the Territory is simply because the Commonwealth government has been forced into a situation where no states would cooperate with them. If they did cooperate with them, we would not have these three sites. They are being forced into a situation. If the Territory government supported Lucas Heights, it would find a site. If the South Australian government supported Lucas Heights, it would find a site. This is a political campaign by the Labor Party against the continuation of Lucas Heights. That is what it is about because, if they believed they were working in the national interest, one of those states would have agreed ...
Mr Warren interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Goyder is speaking out of his chair.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder, you can only speak from your chair.
Mr WOOD: This statement gives the minister the chance to push out the same old rhetoric and propaganda and attempt to legitimise it by saying: ‘Well, I visited all these places and they do it this way’. The minister has interspersed this with the usual propaganda which you would expect from the non-scientific government when it suits them. They claimed they used science when they approved the McArthur River project but, when it comes this to issue, they have used political science, witchcraft and a trip overseas to push their arguments. They have not used science.
Why is it that this minister barely mentions that our radioactive waste comes from a nuclear reactor? Why does she not say that the amount of intermediate-level waste will be extremely small compared to the amounts of waste produced at nuclear power stations in France? The minister avoids the fact that the classification of our waste is a classification used in Australia for radioactive material from our nuclear reactor. If you look at the definitions that are provided – and here it is - intermediate-level waste requires shielding for personal protection but generates minimal heat. It can have long life, and it can have short life. That is the fact, and it is no secret. Then the minister tries to make more of this fact. Look at the third paragraph in the opening statement. The minister said:
This sentence is meant to deceive the public, because that information is and has been freely available to the public via the website and publications, and if you went to the public meeting in Darwin.
Yes, it is the highest grade waste in Australia but it is classed as intermediate-level waste, long lived What the government is trying to do is deliberately put the fear of God into those who do not have a lot of knowledge on this issue.
If I had no more to say on the issue you would be hard to go past the word dump, or nuclear dump. I think it is mentioned - I do not know how many times – at least 14 times. This is Labor’s unscientific political clich it uses and then pretends that this is the real story about Australia’s nuclear waste. You try to infer to the public that our radioactive waste will somehow be just tipped in a hole and buried with no signs - just dumped. If you make it sound bad, do it, but do not forget why politicians use political language, as I stated from George Orwell at the beginning. There will be a radioactive waste storage facility. The Labor Party uses the word ‘dump’ all the time, except the funny thing is, the minister missed it in one part; she called it a waste storage facility. I was quite surprised. Her censors must have let it slip through.
The minister also said, when referring to material that has already been shipped to La Hague and has not been processed, that it will, in principle, have to be sent back to Australia. Again, scare tactics. The fact is that her statement is not true because all the material has already been processed. The minister is also, therefore, out of date when she said that several scenarios need to be evaluated. When you read the minister’s statement, she puts down scenarios one and two. Already No 2 is out of date. Therefore, this is an out-of-date statement.
I believe the people of the Northern Territory would like to hear from someone else who is not from the enclosed society on the fifth floor. Let me read a statement by Dr John Loy, the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection Agency, from a media release headed ‘Nuclear Safety Regulator Licences Operation of OPAL Research Reactor’. Let us hear from the scientist:
That comes from the scientist, a person who knows what he is talking about.
What is missing in the minister’s statement is that we will be getting our fuel reprocessed in the United States. How come that did not turn up in the statement? This is a statement from the people who know. It is funny that those sorts of details are forgotten. The minister also goes on with propaganda that would make Kim Il-sung blush. The minister says that one of the main components to be returned to Australia is vitrified fission products, and then goes on to say this is high-level waste. Wrong! It is intermediate-level waste that produces minimal heat ...
Mr Kiely: Wrong, it is …
Mr WOOD: Go and talk to the people at Lucas Heights!
Mr Kiely: Go and talk to the Americans. They have a damn sight more of it than us.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, you can talk. The definition is there, no matter what you say, and that is the type of waste that will be returned.
Mr Kiely: I have my definition too.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: That is the scientific definition. The minister tries to imply by the words that we will have a neat package of plutonium marked ‘Australia’. This facility will not simply be a waste dump, she said, it will also be a plutonium dump. Again, the fifth floor propaganda machine puts on its ‘no nuclear’ television glasses and deliberately avoids the truth. Yes, a few grams of plutonium along with some other material will be infused into a glass log. Anyone who went to the Darwin meetings would have seen what they were talking about; they would have understood what the glass log was. It can be easily monitored because it is accessible and in a solid form. Plutonium along with radiation material is bound up in this log and is safe to store in that process. Of course, you would not want to mention that.
The government has never said it will not store intermediate low-level waste on this site. It has said the majority of the waste will be low level and there will be a small amount coming from France over the years. I think the whole thing is described as 400 m, which is 10 m that way, 4 m that way and 10 m high. That is a big thing to have to handle.
I pick up what the member for Greatorex said when the minister was talking about how we will receive other waste from other countries. You have to put that in the context of the reprocessing process to understand why. Of course, again they have twisted it to make a big deal out of it and to scare people by saying we are getting other peoples’ material. We are getting the same volume in material back and that is really what the issue is about.
The minister also ridiculed the method of transport of radioactive material when she used the words ‘stick it on a truck’, again using a deliberate word to make it sound like radioactive waste is being transported as you would transport ice cream. She does not tell anyone about how radioactive material is transported, nor does she mention the guidelines for the transport of such waste. You have these IAE safety standards series, regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material from the International Atomic Energy in Vienna. These are the ways we transport our radioactive material. They are not just stuck on a truck. Again, this is all about trying to turn it all around and list the whole thing as bad.
She does not mention that the radioactive material is flown to Darwin once a week on a passenger plane for the benefit of Territorians. That material comes from Lucas Heights. The minister says we were the laughing stock of the world, but this speech will make her the laughing stock of the scientific community. After the McArthur River episode, she tried to do her best to cuddle up to the extreme greens and there is more propaganda. The federal government is thinking of nuclear power, therefore, according to the party apparatchik, they believe that means we will get the waste from a nuclear power plant in this particular radioactive waste facility. What a load of twaddle! We know that you cannot store high-level waste in this kind of facility. It is not built for it. This is not about when you were dreaming, because you cannot put it in that …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You see, they show their ignorance of the facts about storage of high-level waste. High-level waste is stored deep in solid rock material, in forms like synroc. Intermediate-level waste can be stored in a glass log.
Again, this is not about science. This is purely about politics, having a go at the federal government and not finding a solution. If the Labor states and the territories had worked together, if they really believed that it should go in a place in Australia, they would have found it. If they really supported Lucas Heights, they would have got together with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth did work through this process and, in fact, it was initiated by the Labor Party. They did work through this process, got to Woomera - and who threw it out? The Labor Premier who supports the three mine policy - no sorry, who supports the change in the three mines policy.
The minister knows that there will be a different facility. That kind of truth is not the sort of truth you want to hand out to people, because you are trying to knock this whole issue.
I find this whole statement unscientific and deceitful. The minister has not only forgotten her science, she has conveniently forgotten to speak about the three mines policy. When we look at the three mines policy, government is saying: ‘No, we are going to get rid of the three mines policy. It is okay to export uranium overseas, we just turn our backs on what is going to happen to that uranium when it is going to be stored, that is their problem. That is okay, but we are not going to store any nuclear waste in our part of the world’.
To me, it is hypocritical. I know their friends at the Environment Centre put out a media release saying exactly that. They just thought the whole thing was hypocritical. On one hand, you are saying no waste here and, on the other hand, you are quite happy to send more uranium overseas which will have to be stored. You are happy for those people to store it, but you are not happy for it to be stored in Australia.
No word about the Northern Land Council. Whether you like it or not, the Northern Land Council has supported the idea of having a nuclear waste facility. There is not a mention of that in this statement. Why? That would not help the cause.
Again, use of the word ‘dump’. I was very pleased to see the ABC started to move away from the word ‘dump’. I could not believe it. I thought: ‘Gee! Sometimes making a bit of noise does make a difference’. They are using the word ‘facility’ most of the time now, and that is great.
One of the key factors that shows the hypocrisy of this debate is that not one member from the Labor Party has gone to Lucas Heights. Here is our home-grown nuclear reactor, and a brand new OPAL Reactor being built now; a research facility that people seem to forget is extremely important for the benefit of Australia. I will read from ANSTO’s book:
They go on about looking at pollution, counter-terrorism and a whole range of other things. People should take the time to go look at Lucas Heights, take the tour, come back and, if you still do not agree that it should exist, I will accept that. If you are going to say you have been to Lucas Heights but you have only been to the suburb, that is being deceptive. When people say they are going to Lucas Heights, they are going to the nuclear reactor facility, the research station. That was deceiving and that was meant to deceive the public. That should be highlighted because it goes to show that this process is so political.
I do not support the Territory government’s laws being overridden. I have said that before. I do not particularly say the three sites are the best sites in the world, either, but the reality is that I support the idea that we should have a radioactive waste facility because I believe it is good for the nation as a whole. I am an Australian first and a Territorian second. Those boundaries do not mean a thing to me if we do something for the benefit of the country.
If six states cannot get together and find a way of storing the facility, I say the Commonwealth does not have any other option. What other option did it have? I do not like it overriding our laws but if, by supporting a radioactive waste facility I am supporting a facility that will save lives, help industry, improve ways we check on pollution and help counter-terrorism methods, that is worth supporting. I do not have a problem saying it is a good thing for the country. If only all state and territory Labor leaders would get off their political backsides and find a solution, we would not be in this great big mess we are in today.
Mr Acting Speaker, this motion is purely bumf. Let us do some real things. Labor should get together and go down and see John Howard and fix it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, we have heard the Liberal Party version for why we should have the dump in the Territory. We have heard the National Party version for why we should have the dump in the Territory. What we have not heard is the Territory’s version of why we should not have the dump in the Territory.
These people over here are not representing their constituents. Let us see the members for Greatorex or Nelson say: ‘I will have the dump in my electorate in the best interests of the country’. Let us hear them actually say it. Let us see whether they have the guts to say that. They tell people, ‘I have been to Lucas Heights’. We are not here debating whether we should have the nuclear reactor. We are debating whether we should have the nuclear waste depository in the Territory. I have not been to Lucas Heights and have no need to go to Lucas Heights. I know what a nuclear reactor looks like; I have enough pictures on my desk to tell me what nuclear reactors look like.
I will tell you where I have been: to Harts Range and Mt Everard. I have been to two spots in the Territory where they are talking about putting this dump. I will tell you what they are: they are little spots on the end of a bitumen road in the middle of nowhere, or so they would say. Actually, they are just up from Alice Springs, just down the road from Alcoota, just down the road from Yuendumu. They are in population centres. But not to Canberra, they are not - and certainly not for the member for Greatorex or the member for Nelson, who seem to think we can stick it up the Stuart Highway and everything is hunky-dory. Well, there are people living there who have commitments to a good lifestyle, and who do not want nuclear dumps in their back yard. I stand by that. I do not see why we should have to put up with having this forced on us.
On 30 September 2004, just before the federal election, Senator Ian Campbell did say, and I am quoting from the minister’s speech earlier on, that
Back in September 2004, why wouldn’t we accept that? I was a bit concerned about Mr Tollner, the MHR for Solomon’s comments about having a nuclear dump in the Territory, but I took the federal minister at his word because I am sure that he has a lot more sense than our MHR for Solomon. I took him at his word, and why not? When you look at the site selection study released in 1997 about what sites should be used for a national nuclear waste repository, there was Billa Kalina in South Australia; Bloods Range in the Northern Territory; Everard in South Australia; Olary in South Australia/New South Wales; Tanami in the Northern Territory; Jackson in Western Australia; Maralinga and Mt Isa – and they were all knocked out.
For one reason or another, the sites in the Territory worked out. However, where are the other three sites – Fishers Ridge, Mt Everett, Harts Range - in this document? They are nowhere to be seen. They just were not on the radar. As we should, and did, we took the federal minister at his word. Then, a few months later, lo and behold, they bring a bill into parliament, saying: ‘Hang on, the South Australians have turned their back, they have reneged on the deal, it is that scurvy South Australian Labor government which will not allow us to have a consolidated Commonwealth dump. It is their fault. Now we are going to have to put it on to some Commonwealth land somewhere because South Australia has reneged on the deal, and it is all the Labor states’ fault because they will not pressure the South Australian government into having that dump’.
Well, that is not quite the story. The story is that the South Australian dump was for low-level waste. It was not meant for intermediate or higher. What was also not mentioned by the CLP, by the people who want this nuclear dump in the Territory, is that it was going to be in the path of the rocket range. The Department of Defence did not want an intermediate nuclear waste repository where it might just happen to drop a missile on the top of it. I am for the Department of Defence. It makes a whole lot of sense. Get that story out, member for Greatorex. Take that into the equation when you talk about South Australia. It was the Department of Defence, a federal agency, which was the biggest proponent of not putting a dump there. It was not the South Australian government; they went along with the federal recommendation.
The Commonwealth, in its wisdom, said: ‘Righto, we have to select a Commonwealth site, a Defence establishment’. Well, let me name you some. There is Holdsworthy. There is Watsonia in Melbourne. There is Salisbury in South Australia. There is Robertson Barracks, member for Nelson. Any Commonwealth land is where they can put this. But what happened? They wanted to pick somewhere out of the sight of the eastern states, somewhere where the people thought it was a never never. I tell you what, it is Maralinga revisited, isn’t it? It is Maralinga revisited. All that is out there are some tribes that no one sees, no one knows about, no one cares about. Well, we in this Chamber, and in the Territory - and it should be across political lines - care about people. We have learned from Maralinga and we are not going to stand idly by and watch the mistakes of 50 years ago revisited upon people who are disempowered to do anything. They have me standing beside them. I have been to the communities around there.
I have been to those little Defence establishments. I ask: you have Jervis Bay, why is it not there? Why is it not at Holdsworthy? I will tell you why, because the political outcry from those people would be amazingly loud and strong.
I also draw parallels with the Commonwealth’s decision to put it down there from an experience in America. I go to a news article from CBS News. I believe it is 25 July 2004, and is about Yucca Mountain. I will talk about Yucca Mountain a little later.
Nevada, about 100 miles north of Las Vegas, is another small, quaint desert town. The US government has huge issues with their nuclear munitions dumps, with having to get rid of all the old stuff they have and store it. They decided to look around at some of their spots. They have some federal land in Nevada where they let off a few bombs, so I guess the land is pretty well no good for anything else, I will give them that. They decided that they would put it in this mountain; they would dig deep into the mountain and put this nuclear waste repository there for high-level waste. In January 2002, the Secretary of Energy made the decision. Lo and behold, the people in Nevada said: ‘No, we do not want it’, and they enacted laws to stop the transport, and even to cut off the water to Yucca Mountain. What did the United States federal government do? They overrode those laws! They came in, Bovver Boy Jack, straight over the top and said: ‘No, it is federal land, we are putting it there’.
In this news story of 25 July 2004, it says:
What could you put in there? The federal parliament was looking around and said: ‘Okay, let us bury it someplace. Who only has two Senators and one representative - no political clout whatsoever? And who lives in a place that is perceived, at least, to be nothing but desert and wasteland?’ They said: ‘Aha! The Northern Territory!’ How is that for similarities, Mr Acting Speaker?
That is what we are dealing with. That is the sort of mentality coming out of Canberra. That is the process that the CLP is backing, listening to their political masters there. Their elected members, Senator Scullion and the MHR for Solomon, Dave Tollner, both have let the federal government have this. They have virtually signed what I believe to be their own death warrants politically on this one. It is amazing that these political party members did not get onto them and say: ‘You could stop this’ – and they could have. They are quick to say the Democrats supported it, Family First supported it. All it took was Senator Scullion to cross the floor and it was dead in the water. Do not be fooled, members of the Assembly and Territorians, by that line. That is what could have occurred.
There are also other reasons why the Territory was selected. When I was looking through the document A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia – Site Selection Study Phase, I came across another interesting little piece of information. They were talking about site suitability. One of the sites that they considered was okay was ‘transport access is a limiting factor’. They go on to say: ‘Transport access is a limiting factor for the Bloods Range and Tanami regions’. That is what knocked out the Territory sites. Then they said: ‘All other regions have at least one major highway and a railway line passing through them’. What do we have near the sites in the Territory now? We have a major highway and a railway. They are the criteria: Commonwealth land, railway, major highway. That is it in a nutshell.
The so-called Independent - who was showing his National Party colleague’s flag today in nailing that flag to the mast - nailed it when he said: ‘We have a new reactor coming on; of course, we need a waste repository’. We do, because it could not have been signed off contractually. The replacement reactor at Lucas Heights cannot come about unless we have a waste repository working in Australia. That is why the push is on. It has nothing to do with taking back the waste from France or America, as they are saying. ANSTO is pushing: ‘We need a dump, we cannot get the new reactor without it’. That has been the driving force. So they looked around, did the Nevada experience: ‘Aha, two votes, three votes, let us get rid of that. It has a bitumen road, it has a railway, and it has no people anyone knows about’ - except for us here in the Territory, that is, and the poor people who live around it.
That is the reason why we are getting a nuclear dump in the Territory. Much to the shame that the members of the CLP cannot face up to it, will not have the guts and the gumption to face the electorate and say: ‘This is why we have it and we are supporting it’. They need to get out there, they need to get on the doors and they need to tell people in Greatorex, in Nelson, and in Blain: ‘We are doing this, we are rolling over, we are not looking after the interests of the Territory that we have been elected to do’.
Concerns were raised on this side of the House about the waste which we will receive from France, because we are not too sure that it is actually all our waste. What happens on reprocessing is - and this is from the discussion paper entitled Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle - that it all comes in, and any used fuel will contain some of the original U-235 as well as various plutonium isotopes which have been formed inside the reactor core, and the U-238. In total these account for some 96% of the original uranium and over half of the original energy content. Reprocessing undertaken in Europe separates this uranium and plutonium from the waste so that they can be recycled for re-use in a nuclear reactor as a mixed oxide fuel. This is part of the closed fuel cycle.
What happens is that we pick up our spent fuel rods, we ship them to France, and they go through this reprocessing process. Of course, what we get out of that is the plutonium. Members and Northern Territorians who read the Parliamentary Record should know that plutonium is a radioactive silvery metallic transuranic element produced artificially by neutron bombardment of uranium, having 15 isotopes with masses ranging from 232 to 246 and half lives from 20 minutes - I could manage that - to 76 million years. I am finding it very difficult to come to grips with that figure. It is a radiological poison, specifically absorbed by bone marrow and is used, especially the highly fissionable isotope Pu 239, as a reactor fuel and in nuclear weapons. Transuranic, of course, is material contaminated by man-made radioactive elements; transuranic means beyond uranium because the elements are heavier than uranium and they are the heaviest naturally occurring element.
What happens is that the spent fuel rods go to France, or they were going to France - I believe that process is going to stop. They go to France, they get all mixed up with the waste from Germany, Belgium, and France. It is a great big melting pot of nuclear waste, separated out, and then we get back what they reckon might be ours, but it is probably all mixed up. Well, that is just not on. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty talked about trading in waste. Well, we are trading in waste if we do that. We have to be sure that what we get back is what we sent over. We should not have to look after other countries’ waste, which is what is happening at this time.
The member for Nelson was big to go on about saying the waste dump that is proposed for the Territory is intermediate waste. ‘It is intermediate waste …’, he said, ‘… and all these horror stories that you lot are talking about is just propaganda’. Most members here and most of the public, I guess, would have heard of low-level waste, intermediate-level waste, which the member for Nelson spoke about it, but gee, he was pretty light on when he was talking about high-level waste.
The high-level waste arises from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. Oh, a nuclear reactor. Gee, that sounds like Lucas Heights, does it not? A nuclear reactor. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot so requires cooling and shielding. High-level waste accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of electricity generation. So you see, out of any nuclear reactor, you get high-level waste. We are talking about high-level waste getting used, going over for reprocessing and then coming back. The member for Nelson is saying that when it comes back it is intermediate, it does not matter, it is all being processed and sorted out. ‘Get to know the science’, he said, and that we are all Luddites over here. The member for Greatorex said that we did not have any research. I wish he had stuck his head over and looked at my desk. He would have seen a slight amount of research there.
This is from a booklet Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain put out by the American government:
That is your vitrification.
It sounds to me like the same stuff we are talking about. The Americans are calling it high level. Our government is calling it intermediate. Someone has it wrong. The American government has been a nuclear power for 50 years; 40% of its fleet is nuclear. They have untold nuclear stations. They have more uranium and uranium waste than we can ever imagine. We have the reactor at Lucas Heights, which I understand is only a small reactor, an insignificant little reactor. I am inclined to go with the strength. In this case, I will back the Americans and their definition. That is probably closer than the Australian definition.
This Australian publication, Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste, by the National Store Project Methods for Choosing the Right Site – and they accuse us of double speak - is all about the HIFAR nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, proposed for there:
We have heard about what the Americans say about the processing of spent fuel into vitrification:
Well, there you go! Two publications, one Australian, one American. I am happy to table them. There are your two definitions. You pick which one. I would rather err on the side of the American version, and that has nothing to do with …
Dr Lim interjecting
Mr KIELY: Well, member for Greatorex, come and have a look at them. You are over there parroting on about no research done on this side. I have offered you two definitions, two explanations for what vitrified waste is. You make your choice. I know which one I am going for, and I know which one Territorians will go for, and that is this one: the American one. What do they have to carry on about? The Australian government has more to lose on this than the Americans. Their publication dealing with Yucca Mountain is there.
I seek leave to table these documents. They are important documents. They clearly show the two definitions. Let the public decide. I am comfortable with my interpretation of what is high level and I certainly do not subscribe to the Country Liberal Party’s version of events. It is a shame that they are going to go with that version just for political ends to suit their masters in Canberra. I am very disappointed, and I am sure that the electorate is very disappointed and saddened.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I still have more to say and when the time comes, I would appreciate …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I can just interrupt you. Is leave granted for the tabling of those documents?
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister also called to cease all action to establish a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory while they are considering our nuclear future. I have a few theories on our nuclear future.
Mr Mills: Okay, tell us.
Mr KIELY: Yes. I tell you what: they are not too bad. First off, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles, I would have bet the House that no way known were we going to have a nuclear reactor in Australia. Cut and dried. For all the talk that is going on …
Dr Lim: We have a nuclear reactor in Australia already!
Mr KIELY: For power generation, member for Greatorex; I should qualify it, for power generation. My reasoning behind it was because we have huge coal reserves, we have huge cash reserves. We have coal reserves to provide enough energy for us for 200 or 300 years and we have the networks. We have the whole lot, it is all there.
Look at the power supply in the Hunter Valley, at the coal lobby over in Western Australia, down in Yallourn, Victoria - the infrastructures are there, the gas. It just did not make any sense for us. I thought: ‘Well, here we go, no way known, with the infrastructure that is involved, that this is a strong voice and we will have an impact on Canberra’. However, when I was in the United States talking to some people about nuclear reactors, carbon credits, pollution and global warming, there is a strange and wondrous thing happening over there: about 20% of electricity in the United States is generated by nuclear; 50% is coal generated power stations. The move is on in the United States now for building nuclear reactors. What happens, I believe, is that the power stations and utilities - and they are privately owned - get carbon credits …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KIELY: There is a whole market on carbon credits building up around the place, and the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange is a world leader in it. What happens, of course, is that these utilities, rather than putting the money into looking for ways to trap all the greenhouse emissions coming out of the coal stacks, can build nuclear power stations and generate more power. Instead of the emissions coming out of, say, a 1000 mW power station over here, they build the nuclear power station which shows very minuscule greenhouse gas emissions and they get credits. They are no longer doing 1000 mW over here, they are doing 2000 mW of power but the greenhouse gas, the carbon emission rate, has not significantly risen so they get carbon trading - they get credits. These credits are all set against the coal-fired plants - and there you go - they do not have to spend money on trapping those greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired stations. When you have a look at the special provisions that are in the American legislation for the building of nuclear and the subsidies that go with it, it is a very attractive offer indeed.
What made me change my mind about whether we would get a nuclear power station in Australia is, of course, the same thing. These carbon credits are globally traded, so why would the company not come into Australia and say: ‘Right, let us get all the tax breaks, let us get all the subsidies’? - and they will – ‘Let us build you a new nuclear power station down here and then start trading in carbon credits’. What we run the chance of seeing is a rise of nuclear power stations without the subsequent addressing of the pollution and the greenhouse gas emissions from our existing coal-fired power stations, where the money would probably be better spent in the long term, at least in Australia’s national interests.
Australia’s national interests over there is something that needs a serious look at. We also talk about this being a kite flying exercise: ‘Oh well, we will go for an enrichment plant, let us just build a nuclear enrichment plant’. With the non-proliferation treaties around the world that we signed off on - and there is a whole range of nuclear treaties - the crux is that you cannot trade in waste. You cannot trade in nuclear waste. So, I put it as food for thought to the Assembly: what happens then if we enrich the uranium, turn it into nuclear fuel, and then we lease it to power stations - to the user in Germany, in England, or in America - we lease the fuel? It then is our responsibility, and back comes the waste and we have it all. Therefore, we have this added value. I am all for adding value to our mineral body and our commodities. That is fair enough. However, I do not think this is quite the right spirit it should be done in. However, that would get over the part of our trading in waste and make it quite feasible to have an enrichment plant.
When you look at nuclear waste repositories such as in New Mexico where the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is, and in Nevada at the Yucca Mountain project - and the minister spoke about her trip to Finland - they are huge costs. Indeed, the WIPP plant in New Mexico is some half-mile below the ground in permian salt rock deposits. They have gone down half a mile, dug out all the salt - and they reckon salt is a good area; this is where the Americans are storing all their nuclear waste from weapons, might I add - and are putting all the waste down there because salt will grow. Therefore, over the years, it will grow over the waste and so seal it forever, out of harm’s way.
The best practice is to bury this stuff as far away as you can get. This is high-level waste I am talking about, not intermediate or low level. This is the best way to handle it. As an aside, this waste is going to be around for 250 000 years. I do not know whether anyone can grasp that but, to give you a feeling, we are still uncovering stuff from the Egyptian era 4000 years ago. Lost civilisations have been emerging over the last 100 years, things we never knew about from only 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago. For me, I cannot imagine what it would be like at 250 000. Our civilisation will come and go, and others will be around, and the whole topography will change and things will move on.
They have all sorts of warnings around the WIPP place. They have built a large earthen hill and they have perimeter monuments. They have ground monuments 25 feet high standing on two perimeters of the WIPP site. The boundary of the four square mile controlled area, and just inside the berms surrounding the repository’s 120 acre footprint. Each monument will be made of 20 tonnes of solid material, so they are doing that to let people know.
They have an information centre which is a 40 feet by 32 feet by 15 feet high surface structure which sits in the repository footprint. It has a granite interior and exterior walls will be engraved with many messages, some in words and some in pictures. It is like 2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t it? It is amazing stuff! They have buried markers, randomly, two to six feet deep throughout the repository footprint. I am saying all this because this is the sort of work that has to go on for a safe repository.
Then, look at Yucca Mountain, which is not yet fully approved; they have just been going through all the tests. This is going into the mountain and is huge. The footprint is all inside the mountain. Right down the bottom they have been doing water tests because these storage facilities cannot be anywhere near water. You cannot take a chance on the water table. When you are talking 250 000 years, you just do not know about the environment. That is the sort of material we are playing with here.
The Americans have something like 70 000 tonnes of material they have to handle. Think of it like this: think of our small jurisdiction and our government. We emulate and carry out the same tasks as New South Wales does, or the State of Carolina - our functions are the same, on a smaller scale, but just as important. So, too, with nuclear waste, and our nuclear waste will be on a far smaller scale than the Americans have. However, whether it is one ounce or one tonne, it is still going to be hanging around for 250 000 years.
Do not get caught up on: ‘Oh, it is only 2 m3, it is only 3 m3’. Talk about the life of that particular pile of waste and that is what it is. And that does not change, Mr Acting Speaker.
When we talk about an open and transparent scientific process to determine the best storage or disposal solution for nuclear waste, we are talking about high-level nuclear waste. Make no mistake. We are talking about high-level nuclear waste, particularly if we go to nuclear enrichment or to nuclear power plants - particularly if we start leasing an value added product and bringing it back. We cannot bring back other people’s waste at this stage because of all the treaties. However, it is on the horizon if we do go that way.
All these repositories have taken something like 30 years to get up to this stage. What are we talking about now? We are talking now and we disputing the level – well, I am disputing the classification of the waste going in - but we are talking about a cement bunker just down the road from Alcoota, just off the Stuart Highway or up at Katherine. We are talking about building a cement bunker to store our waste ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Mr KIELY: Has it?
Mr STIRLING: I move an extension of time …
Dr Lim: No, he has already had one extension. Come on!
Mr STIRLING: … for the member to complete his remarks.
Dr Lim: No, he has had one extension. The standing order says no.
Mr Mills: You are gagging him, you meanie.
Mr KIELY: Yes, you are gagging me. are you?
Dr Lim: No. The standing orders say no.
Mr KIELY: Member for Greatorex, perhaps if you had addressed all these issues and you are the one who is urging me on – show us your data, come on, do your study.
Dr Lim: No. The standing order says no. He has had his time. He has had his extension.
Mr KIELY: I have done my study, member for Greatorex. I am representing my constituents.
Dr Lim: He has had his extension.
Mr KIELY: You should represent yours.
Dr Lim: He has had his extension.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, member for Sanderson. Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Sanderson to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr Lim: No, hang on. I believe that is a dissenting voice. You do not have that.
Mr Stirling: I moved a suspension of standing orders.
Mr KIELY: I will continue then. I am just amazed that the member for Greatorex should want to gag me on this. I hope that when people read this, they – you know, he has been calling for members on this side to show proof. Show us your proof. What do you have? I have given him proof. I have shown him and now he wants to gag me. Well, it will not work and I hope that members in his electorate are listening and watching his actions in regard to this, because they are abysmal. He is not standing up for the Territory. It is not in the national interest. It is the Liberal Party and it is ANSTO and he is in thrall to them, and his National party mate who comes in here cloaked as an Independent. Well, it is just not on. He is just going to have to listen and put up with it.
This is what we are looking down the barrel of, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I want all Territorians to know that if they sit back and say it is all on the science - well, it is not all on the science, it is political. The federal government is not telling us the truth. The basis of wanting a repository in the Northern Territory is based on purely political expediency and a need to get ANSTO their second reactor to get the exchange going. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater human need.
There has been this furphy getting around from the member for Solomon, and he is been parroted by all the other members of the CLP, that you are just not interested in helping your fellow Australians out: ‘All those people who need their nuclear medicine, and we are going to get you an oncology unit. Sign up for this nuclear waste dump because you use the nuclear medicines from Lucas Heights, therefore, you have a moral obligation to take it’. The new generation of PET scanners and all those sorts of things use cyclotrons, and the cyclotrons make their own isotopes on-site because the half life is so quick. So we …
Dr Lim: Cyclotron isotopes are not used for therapy, only for diagnostics. You do not know that, do you? You do not know that, do you? You do not know that. Cyclotrons are only good for diagnostic material, not for therapeutic material.
Mr KIELY: … will not be getting any of the product of Lucas Heights. We will not be getting any – you have had your go, member for Greatorex. Why didn’t you tell them that? You are a medical practitioner. Why didn’t you? Yes, the member for Greatorex is quick to want to be called doctor. He is not quick to tell people the truth, though
It is cyclotron: we will not be using any of the material from Lucas Heights. To come in here and tell Territorians that we have a moral obligation to take the waste created by Lucas Heights is utter rubbish. You should stand condemned for that, member for Greatorex - doctor. Doctor! I have had my say on that one.
Mr Acting Speaker, we have asked the Commonwealth government to respect sovereignty of the Northern Territory and this parliament. I am back on the committee that is looking after statehood. Things have not moved our way for six to eight years. With the intransigence of the federal government on this line, we are putting up a really hard fight to try to get statehood in this particular political climate. I am terribly saddened that that should be the case.
The CLP is signed up to the federal Liberal Party. They do not have their Territory credentials any more. Not only has the CLP signed away the Territory and is toeing the Canberra Liberal/National Party line on the repository, they are also signalling that we do not need statehood, we do not want statehood, we do not deserve statehood in the Territory; we are happy to take the crumbs and the offerings from Canberra. On two counts the CLP stands condemned. They stand condemned for selling out the Territory on this nuclear waste dump and they stand condemned for selling out the Territory on statehood. I hope that one gets back to your electorate too, Mr 3%, because that is all you are there by, member for Greatorex. I will guarantee that it will not be that much next time ...
Dr Lim: I am here and she is not here.
Mr KIELY: Well, you had better get doorknocking and you had better be telling them the truth.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the parliament for listening to me. I hope the member for Greatorex has learned a few things. This is the second time the member for Greatorex has called out for information. Remember in the debate the other day when he said: ‘We have not heard about this, we have not heard about that’, on museums. He would not go out and do his own study, so we have had to force feed him. It is a bit like a budgie, isn’t it? You have to throw those worms down his throat, hope that he will swallow them and get bigger, fatter and better.
The minister said that the Assembly condemns the Commonwealth government for misleading the people of Australia about the type and source of nuclear waste to be returned to Australia. I have demonstrated quite clearly that they have misled us.
On a personal note, I condemn the CLP. How could four members possibly get it so wrong? You would think they would sit in the car and talk about it on the way in ...
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr KIELY: That is the once proud CLP – did the member for Greatorex just say: ‘I will have it in my back yard’? Is that right? ‘I will have it in my back yard’, member for Greatorex? Is this going to go in your back yard? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the people of Central Australia will never ever forgive you for it.
Mr McADAM (Central Australia): Mr Acting Speaker, clearly, the federal government is considering placing its nuclear waste dump not only in Central Australia, but has also identified a site astride the headwaters of Katherine and the Daly River in the Top End of the Northern Territory. On this occasion, I will leave that matter to be discussed at a future time. I am especially interested in the member for Katherine’s views on that.
I also congratulate the minister for her very comprehensive statement. I will quote from that speech.
Let us be under no illusions about this waste. It is not the so-called hospital basement waste. It will consist of spent fuel rods that contain plutonium, the most dangerous of nuclear products.
Central Australia, including the Barkly, is a unique, beautiful yet vulnerable and precious part of Australia, and it is commonly called ‘desert’. My dictionary defines desert as ‘an uninhabited and uncultivated tract of country, desolate, barren, waterless and treeless’. Any fair-minded person would not see Central Australia as that. I prefer to use the more modern term ‘arid lands’. It more adequately describes a landscape that has low rainfall for most of the time, but not always. Arid lands have an incredibly diverse niche of communities, of extraordinary Australian fauna and flora. They are populated by peoples who know and love the arid lands, unique characters who wish to grow specialised, sustainable, environmentally non-threatening industries.
We are fortunate in this House to live in a time when the old thinking of Central Australia as a desert has been replaced by more scientific thought. Even more fortunate than that, we can see the efforts of progressive minded individuals, companies and communities who see their future inextricably bound up in the arid lands of Central Australia. These people have a vision for the place where they live, the place they call home. That vision is to take all that is best and beautiful about Central Australia, to nurture it, to care for it and to harvest its bounty. I am talking about many things: people working hard to make their own particular industries sustainable, successful and profitable, whilst maintaining the unique character of the arid lands of Central Australia.
I am talking about people like Lindsay Bookie, the new Chairman of the Central Land Council, who has begun an eco-cultural tourism project on his traditional lands, not far from one of the sites proposed for the nuclear waste dump at Harts Range. I am talking about progressive pastoralist companies like Kidmans and the Australian Agricultural Company which have a vision for growing clean and green beef on the grasslands of the Barkly Tablelands, not far from another of the proposed sites for a dump on Muckaty Station. I will go back to that a little later, particularly in reference to the comments by the member for Greatorex about the Northern Land Council.
I am also talking about horticulturalists who are making these arid lands bloom, the farms that specialise in grapes, vegetables and cut flowers, not far from another proposed site at Mt Everard. Of course, older Australian foods have been harvested on these arid lands for millennia. We are fortunate enough to see such bush foods at last making their make in the broad Australian and overseas markets. None of these people see Central Australia as a desert. They all see it as arid lands, capable of producing a lifestyle for millennia to come for them and their families.
Recently, I spoke at a rally in Alice Springs titled ‘We are not no one. This is not nowhere’. It was a gathering to remember the last time before this when a significant Australian politician thought of Central Australia as a desert, as uninhabited and uncultivated, as a desolate tract of country, barren, waterless and treeless. That politician was Bob Menzies who, without even consulting his Cabinet let alone the parliament of the day, allowed the British government to explode a number of nuclear devices at Maralinga in South Australia’s north. The Australian government, at that time, had no vision for the arid lands of Central Australia, no vision other than its unique character could be wiped away in a blinding flash or two. Moreover, the Australian government had little or no knowledge about the science of arid lands, the great potential for sustainability for people and industry.
Just last week in this House, we heard the member for Stuart make his maiden speech, and a wonderful speech it was too. In that speech, he spoke about his political role models, mainly from outside of politics. But, interestingly, he spoke about one Roger Vale, a conservative founding member of the Country Liberal Party, who we all know had his roots in Central Australia. Roger Vale was a unique Australian, a man who had a simple philosophy for Central Australia. That philosophy was that it was a good place to live, to grow up a family, and that it could sustain life as long as you looked after it. He, like the member for Stuart, was an integral part of one of Central Australia’s greatest sporting clubs, the Pioneers Football Club. Their record of winning premierships is an outstanding one, probably second to none in the history of our great national game. He set about winning premierships by getting people from all walks of life, from different races and different backgrounds, rich and poor, to work hard together for a common purpose.
I wonder what Roger Vale would think of the current small crop of Country Liberal Party politicians. Roger Vale always stood up for Central Australia; he was a proud Territorian. One of the reasons he helped found the CLP was, in his mind, to fend off what he considered the overbearing intrusion into Centralian life and communities of the power of a strong central government in Canberra. Today, we see the overbearing intrusion that Roger Vale feared most.
The Liberal/National Coalition is subjecting Centralians to its will, whether the people live, work and play there, like it or not, with the most draconian anti-democratic legislation in Australia’s history, without consultation with anyone who lives there. The Prime Minister is determined to subject the Territory to its will. What was the response of the Country Liberal Party’s heirs to Roger Vale’s political mantle? It was interesting that I heard some of the comments, particularly from the member for Greatorex, about the Northern Land Council as it relates to the Muckaty site, which is still under consideration to the best of my knowledge by the Australian government, aided and abetted by the Northern Land Council. It is important, member for Greatorex, that you understand precisely the process that has occurred in respect to that particular site put up by the Northern Land Council. It is also worth remembering that it was the Northern Land Council some years ago which worked with the traditional owners to secure that land so that they could have sustainable environments, their culture, their spiritual affiliations with that land intact. They were the ones who, all those years ago at the behest of the traditional owners, decided to go down that path.
Today we have a situation with the Northern Land Council – and, I suspect, with Senator Scullion - has put a position to the Commonwealth government that Muckaty may well be one of those sites. I just want to ask two things of the Northern Land Council. No 1 is: why are you not responding to the letters from the traditional owners who have written to officers of your organisation? Why have you not responded? The second point I want to say is this: the NLC is a very proud organisation and one that is respected and deserves respect. However, I get very concerned when the NLC surreptitiously embarks on a process that effectively sets out to undermine the status of traditional owners in that country - the same people who they stuck up for all those years ago in getting that land. Why is that they are now going out there and trying to build a case to discredit some of those traditional owners? Why is it that they are actually questioning if, indeed, they are traditional owners? If you have a look at the Muckaty land claim, you will very clearly see that those same people, all those years ago, who they supported, are the same people on the list today. I ask that question of NLC. Member for Greatorex, you talked about leadership, them having a vision. I suspect, in this particular case, their position is purely that of selfish interests.
I just want to go back to the CLP. I made a reference in respect to Roger Vale, a very proud man. You have to ask yourself: have the members for Araluen and Greatorex stood up to be counted in this particular matter? The answer is no. Did they argue with and lobby their federal conservative colleagues? The answer is no. Did they demand the right to be heard? The answer is no. Did they even get out and talk to those whose lives and livelihood would be most affected by the nuclear waste dump? The answer is no. What did they do? Very simply, they rolled over. It is important to understand, members for Greatorex and Araluen, that I was in Alice Springs about a month ago and had the opportunity to address a rally. Bear in mind to the best of my knowledge, there have been something like 6000 signatories to a petition opposing this particular …
Dr Lim: $70 each, that is what it is.
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon?
Dr Lim: $70 each. That is what it costs the government to get signatures.
Mr McADAM: Six thousand people have clearly voiced their concern about this proposal which you back. The other thing to understand is this: there are 72 businesses – and you may not consider that to be significant - in Alice Springs which have also voiced their concern, in writing, that Alice Springs should be a nuclear-free zone because, logically, the only place to bring this stuff is through Alice Springs via rail unless you know there are other options. I doubt it.
I have been very disappointed with Senator Scullion in this whole debate. He started out in a grand fashion. He started out sticking up for Territorians. You will remember his phone call to Brendan Nelson when he said: ‘Not on my watch, mate.’ What has he done? He has rolled over to the Liberal/National heavies in Canberra. So have the federal minister, the member for Solomon, and sadly, the members for Greatorex and Araluen. The senator went to water. The formerly proudly independent CLP became what it is today, a tiny rump that speaks for no one but themselves and stands up for a Prime Minister who would threaten the hopes and desires for a sustainable future for themselves and their families in Central Australia.
Let there be no illusions about the nuclear waste dump proposal. It threatens all that is good, and all that could be good about Central Australia, a place where hard work will pay off in a land that is rich in opportunity. There is something special about that country and its surrounds.
I want to make reference to my home town of Tennant Creek. It has also been a subject of the proposal put up by NLC and Nigel Scullion. I want to make it very clear that the views I get from people living in that particular community and those communities around the place, including the pastoral properties, is that they do not want it. They believe that it compromises not only their social wellbeing, but it also has great capacity to impact upon their economic opportunities.
It is also important to understand that visitors from all over the world come to Central Australia. They come for its unique features, its vast open star-filled skies, its huge, endless grassland vistas, its mighty rugged mountain ranges and, of course, the valleys and the watercourses that are right through our community. They also come to interact with people, its hard-working cattlemen and women, its craggy prospectors and, most importantly, the traditional owners who are associated with that part of the country.
An important point to make here is that much has been said and much has been written over the last few days regarding, particularly, the indigenous members on this side of the House for not having the guts to stand up, for not having the courage to say what they wish to say.
I make that reference directly to the NLC. My challenge is to the NLC: if you really believe that you have a charter to stick up for the rights of indigenous people, to be honest, open and fair, to ensure that the process is transparent, that you engage, that you consult with people, then I would respectfully suggest you do it. I believe you are talking at the moment, NLC, with a forked tongue.
There are other things that I wanted to say but I will leave it there. I have made my point: clearly, the people of Central Australia do not wish to have a nuclear waste dump in their area because the impact, both short- and long-term, will be catastrophic in the capacity of those communities to grow and provide real social and economic outcomes.
There is something that I have always said, and I made the point when it was first announced, particularly in relation to the Muckaty proposed waste site at a public meeting that was convened in Tennant Creek. At that time, I did not fully understand or appreciate – perhaps even now I do not – what it actually means. However, there is one basic human tenet, one basic human common decency that should prevail through this whole exercise: the Commonwealth government should engage with people on the ground, find out what their views are and then I do not care if you make a decision that is not favourable to the outcome that the community might want on the ground. At the very least, I ask them to engage, consult, and talk to people. I say to Nigel Scullion, the Senator for the Northern Territory, that you have a real opportunity to make your mark in the context of your place in the history of the Northern Territory. The only way that you can make your mark is by sticking up for the rights of Territorians and doing what you said you would do in the first place. If necessary, cross the floor and say no to this dump.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the statement on the real story of Australia’s nuclear waste by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage.
Like the member for Barkly, I want to talk about the Caterpillar Dreaming, the kangaroo, the army ants of Central Australia. I want to put on record what the indigenous and non-indigenous people tell me as the member for Macdonnell in Central Australia. They do not want the nuclear waste dump in Central Australia. I am disappointed not to hear the members for Araluen and Greatorex stand up for Central Australia in this House today.
As the member for Macdonnell and as a great advocate for Central Australia, I will be going back on Friday and spreading the message about the lack of support from the members for Araluen and Greatorex. People in Central Australia need to know that two of their local members do not support sticking up for Central Australia and saying no to the Commonwealth about the nuclear waste dump in such beautiful country as Central Australia.
As the member for Barkly said, we have the rivers, the mountains, and the flat land. If you go towards Mt Everard and talk to Gloria and Steven, they are very passionate about their country, about leaving a clean environment for their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren to enjoy. If you go across on the Eastern Plenty and talk to the people at Alcoota, they, too, want to live in a clean Territory. As the member for Sanderson said, you do not want to repeat history. These are people who need people like yourselves, who call yourselves politicians, to stand up for the rights of Central Australia and, for that matter, the whole of the Northern Territory.
We have such a beautiful country in the Northern Territory, and we have very different landscape coming from Central Australia through the Barkly region, to the Katherine region and then to the Top End.
Tourists from overseas and across Australia come to the Northern Territory, not just for the beautiful scenery that they see in Central Australia and the Top End, but to have the interaction with indigenous people and with true Aussie Territorians. That is what they say, that Territorians are very different people to people who live in the eastern states of Australia, very dinky-di Aussie people who are straightforward and will speak their mind.
Something else the member for Greatorex said was about the Northern Land Council seeing economic opportunities to put the nuclear waste dump in the area of where the member for Barkly was talking about. Under the land rights legislation, the NLC is just an entity that represents traditional owners. It is quite clear that the Northern Land Council has not represented its constituents. As the member for Barkly said, there have been letters written by traditional owners to the Northern Land Council, putting their thoughts on paper to say that they do not want a nuclear waste dump in their area and, like the member for Barkly, I am very disappointed in an entity, under Commonwealth legislation, that overrides a decision of the traditional owners.
I take this opportunity to thank the minister for clearly articulating the real story about Australia’s nuclear waste. There have been so many half-truths told in this debate that it is good for Territorians to have a clear understanding of exactly what the Commonwealth is proposing. Radioactive waste is a serious problem that requires responsible and prudent management, but the Northern Territory has been forced to accept the nuclear waste generated elsewhere. The nuclear waste repository was forced onto the Territory because most states had passed legislation specifically prohibiting nuclear waste from entering their state, resulting in the federal government abandoning one proposed national repository site after the next. Then Territorians have had to endure endless footage of federal ministers sitting on 44 gallon drums to demonstrate how safe storing nuclear waste is and that there is nothing to be afraid of, yet they were determined to store the nuclear waste as far away from themselves and the cities as possible.
So, of course Territorians asked: ‘If it so safe, why not put it in your back yard instead of ours?’ But, as the minister has pointed out, the federal government is looking for a site to store not only low-level waste but also the highest level radioactive waste produced in Australia, highly radioactive preprocessed waste from over 1000 existing and future spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor will also return to Australia over the next 40 years. This waste is the Commonwealth’s responsibility, as are the huge quantities of low-level waste from Lucas Heights. It will also accommodate reprocessed spent fuel rods that contain plutonium, a dangerous, long-lived radioactive substance that is difficult to store safely. The Lucas Heights reactor will continue to be responsible for the vast majority of radioactive waste generated in this country. It is worth noting that the New South Wales government considers that Lucas Heights should continue to act as a waste facility rather than transporting waste across that state and others. That was the conclusion of their inquiry into the transportation and storage of nuclear waste early last year.
It is important that the storage of Australia’s radioactive waste be done in a responsible, scientifically robust and transparent manner. This has not occurred. The federal government has not only disregarded the science, but failed to consult with Territorians. It has ignored our democratic right and the will of the Northern Territory parliament.
I believe it is really important at this stage to say that there has been no consultation with indigenous people where the two proposed sites are - Mt Everard and Harts Range. If there is any aim by the Commonwealth to use these two sites for a nuclear waste dump, there needs to be consultation, not just with traditional owners but with all Territorians. I will go back to saying that we need to keep the Territory safe for our future generations. We need to keep the Territory safe and clean for tourists to enjoy because the stuff that we are talking about is what they want to get away from. They want to come to clean places and the Territory is the most important place that they come when they want to enjoy their holidays and make sure that they have a clean holiday.
What is most disturbing is the Commonwealth passed this legislation when there was clearly no urgency for the decision, as the minister has detailed. In the process, it removed entitlements to procedural fairness and judicial review. It is unwarranted, unjustified, and I agree with the minister that it erodes the whole principle of self-government.
I was also concerned that the government, in particular Senator Scullion and David Tollner, argued that expansion of Australian nuclear production is necessary for medical purposes, when this is clearly not true. In a media release they said:
Releasing that kind of statement really frightens women who suffer from breast cancer. For two of our Territory politicians who live in the Territory putting that kind of information across and scaring women who suffer from this horrible disease, is just unjustified. We, as women, need to stand up and tell Senator Scullion and Dave Tollner that they have to be honest, and they should not be using this kind of debate and scaring people when they are talking about such a serious issue.
This statement is misleading. Medical experts argue that the future direction of nuclear medicine lies with the cyclotron produced products already being produced in Australia, and with accelerators. They argue that Australia can have a secure supply of medical isotopes for cancer treatment, medical research, and other applications, without another nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Australia imports this material on a regular basis when the Lucas Heights reactor is shut down for maintenance. The Medical Association for Prevention of War was scathing of Mr Tollner and Senator Scullion’s claims and said:
Given that there is no urgency for a waste dump, proper consultation and scientific assessment of appropriate sites should be undertaken instead of just picking a site in the Northern Territory from a desktop research and starting to plonk nuclear waste on this beautiful land. The lack of consultation has been exacerbated by the concerns that the nominated sites were selected without any independent expert advice and could, potentially, add significant environmental consequences. However, the federal government has acted like cowboys on this issue. One of the more memorable comments was from Brendan Nelson when discussing the NT sites. I quote:
We on this side of the House do not classify the Northern Territory to be nowhere. It is a place where Territorians live. In the pastoral industry, Aboriginal people have all worked together and created this beautiful Territory that we all enjoy today - in real partnership. We should be making a safe Territory for our children and our grandchildren.
The Harts Range site is right next door to the communities of Engawala, Angula and Mulga Bore in the middle of some of the best pastoral country in Central Australia, whereas the site near Hamilton Downs is the catchment area for Alice Springs. The pastoral industry has expressed concern that dumping radioactive waste could damage community perceptions of the quality of Northern Territory beef. Similarly, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association argued that the placement of the facility in close proximity to the region’s Tindal, Oolloo and Jinduckin aquifer system is fraught with danger. This system supports the Northern Territory’s premier agricultural and horticultural production sites which generate crop commodities worth in excess of $80m a year.
The government has shown total disregard for the views of traditional landowners in this process. Traditional landowners of the two proposed dump sites in Central Australia have made an absolute statement of opposition to the dump plan and have vowed to actively resist this proposal. They say:
The Northern Territory government recognises that radioactive waste is a reality and a serious issue. We are not against a centralised facility and acknowledge that a centralised facility could increase security, efficiency and safety. However, we believe that this needs to be achieved in a responsible, scientifically robust and transparent manner.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments made by honourable members on this important debate. It is a very important debate because it is not easy to deal with these matters, particularly when we are dealing with issues that can easily be used to promote fear. Fear can be generated if there is not a proper attention to the details surrounding this complex and volatile issue.
Communities around the globe have, at different stages, contended with the issue of nuclear power generation, the mining of uranium, enrichment, storage, etcetera. This community, this nation of Australia, is a stage that is just entering this debate. Intellectual and logical approaches to these matters need to be paramount otherwise we can easily get off the track and you can see that we are actually dealing with matters that rest principally on a foundation that is either ideological, or emotional, or politically expedient.
Firstly, as an individual, I am not afraid of nuclear power. I am not afraid of nuclear energy in the sense that I am prepared to look at it and to think carefully through it. If my children came to speak to me about such matters, I would want to make sure that I had carefully weighed what I said to them. We all know that global warming is a problem. Al Gore is going around the traps selling a couple of messages. One is: ‘There is a massive global problem’. Yes, there is. ‘It is global warming’. Yes, we all agree. ‘And as the next president of the United States, with your support I can do something about it’. That is the subliminal message, in my view, of the inconvenient truth. But that aside, it clearly establishes in the global mind that there is a concern about the warming of the planet.
The greatest cause for global warming is coal. Coal is feeding that problem. That is why we have the likes of Flannery and others looking at the issue of coal. Even Peter Garrett is saying that we do need to have a reasoned debate about nuclear industry. It does not mean that you immediately jump to the position of saying: ‘Yes, yes. We must have it’, but we must walk sensibly to assess that issue. If we are going to go down that path, inherent in that is there is going to be a by-product. That by-product needs to be stored. Other communities have assessed that issue and stored it in ways acceptable to their own communities. We need to look at that.
If we are going to bring discipline to this issue, first we are going to have to remove the emotion from it. The emotion can be modified by weighing carefully the facts, ensuring we are not putting our hand to the issue to tilt it one way to suit a shorter-term gain. There will be facts tossed around the place, and yelled and screamed, one side to the other, but we really must be moderate. One issue that helps me come to the view that there is some discrepancy in the positions taken by members in this Chamber is that when you talk about the sacredness of land, you talk about the ties that you have to places, and how land can be changed; that it has a history beyond European civilisation. You can speak with passion about it; you speak because Canberra is the target. When it is the McArthur River: mute. Similar issues apply, yet members speak not a word in this Chamber because Canberra is not the target. It is their own group. That troubles me.
You need to reflect on the principles on which you base a position. Canberra being the target, go for it, but recognise the motivation that stands behind your justification for the arguments that are raised. It is plain to see and it makes it a little weak when that is the reason for a passionate position. The foundation is exposed.
When you are able to comfortably, on one hand, have uranium extracted from the ground and exported along a railway line, across your port here in Darwin, and see that as not a problem whatsoever, but you do not want to have an expansion, to see that industry develop and you are happy for it to be exported to other countries but under no circumstances are you interested in having it returned from whence it came, those issues have to be weighed fairly. Is that a fair position to take? If it is not, as logically it assumes that it is not a fair position to take, therefore, you should not dig it out of the ground nor export it. But if you are going to export it, you cannot be inconsistent. You need to follow the logic all the way through.
What drives this is principally the interest in scoring political goals. The position is logically compromised by taking that as a position. In saying that you have consulted the community, you have actually pumped a specific message. You have allowed our own financial resources to be generated into a campaign that has cost approximately $70 a signature, which was presented to the federal parliament. I find that disturbing. It has already been mentioned in the Chamber that there have been other petitions supported by community groups that have been presented to this government, and they are not responsive in the slightest, yet they are able to fund a massive petition campaign that results in just over 4500 signatures and expect the federal government to respond immediately. Those sorts of things concern me.
The use of language - I had to check again; I kept hearing it echoed in speeches: it will be the highest level of waste. That is alarming in itself as a clever use of words. Where, currently, is the Territory’s highest level of radioactive material stored? It is stored at Royal Darwin Hospital. That is the current highest. So the highest level that will be stored in this facility is the highest level in Australia. That does not make it the highest level in the world. Using those words, without any modifier, creates a deliberate scenario that is designed to unsettle and then, being unsettled, you can use this argument to suit an ideological or a political position. That is what troubles me.
However, the member for Sanderson, who groans slightly – I was interested in your comments. There were some aspects of it that I had to put the filters up because you have, obviously, taken an angry pill. I hope it is as a result of something you have taken and that you are not intrinsically inclined that way, but there are aspects of your comments that, as a result of travelling and visiting other places, you actually raised some very important issues. At least you have been to other places, looked and seen, and asked some important questions about what you had seen and learned. That is good to hear, because we are not just political operators in here. We are actually community leaders, and you have shown a bit of that in some of your comments.
You did say something that I cannot support; that is, that you believe that in the national interests it would be better for Australia to increase the use of coal. I cannot support that and I do not think, if you followed that through, you would find much support on that. Increasing coal use in the national interests – I cannot support that.
I am quite interested in learning more of your position on – and I certainly do support it as it was mentioned in your comments – exploring the idea of enriching uranium in Australia, exporting it and leasing it back. That is something worth considering. I am very pleased that, in your trip to the United States, you were able to assess the potential of adding value to that which comes from our own ground and managing the product all the way through.
I do have great difficulties with the tone of this debate. It is clearly intended to maintain and entrench a particular position, which is political. It is clear that Canberra is the target, so the gloves are off – you can get fully involved in that. All the members will get up and have a good old chat about it, but when it comes something closer to home and Canberra is not the target, you are hiding back in your party ranks. That is disturbing and I believe it would be a disturbance to any member if they were able to reflect on the contrast in positions taken. You can probably explain it away, but if you stopped and thought about it, it would be a difficult matter to explain away. Heaven knows what happens in your caucus rooms – you tell me from time to time. I am genuinely concerned because some of you would have great difficulty remaining mute in caucus on positions of apparent unity in the Chamber. How do you translate that back into the Chamber and pretend that you do support a line, when you are actually representing your electorates more than you are representing your party? That is something that is quite clear in this debate.
For the reasons I have indicated, because of the basis upon which this whole exercise rests, I cannot find myself supporting the motion at all in any way. It is disingenuous. I believe you are being quite false in the way that you are posturing. Once again, we are getting these issues raised in the parliament and, clearly, the objective is a political one. You want to advance that matter, to seek that objective only, and compromise the foundational issues of what you genuinely believe in and what you have actually logically thought through. I cannot support you.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the minister in her statement on the issue of nuclear waste dumps in the Northern Territory. Firstly, I would like to state that one of the two proposed sites in Central Australia is in my electorate of Stuart. The key question in the debate is: what about the rights of Territorians to make decisions that are in their own best interests and wellbeing?
I was disappointed to hear the members for Araluen and Greatorex’s contribution to this debate. I am particularly disappointed that both the member for Araluen and the member for Greatorex are not standing up for the people of Central Australia. Instead, they stand up for their mates in Canberra, those fly in/fly out politicians from down south. Obviously, the members for Araluen and Greatorex have taken the people in Alice Springs and Central Australia for granted. I can assure them we will be letting them know.
During the by-election, I had people raise this issue with me, as well as their opposition to the proposed waste facility. My constituents are concerned about nuclear waste being dumped on their land. They are very worried. I participated in a public forum in August last year with some 250 residents of Central Australia voicing strongly their opposition to the proposed waste facility. I note that the member for Macdonnell was also there in support, as well as the previous Minister for Central Australia. I also note that on Sunday, 1 October 2006, some 300 people attended the Maralinga day in Alice Springs. I also note that the member for Barkly and the Minister for Central Australia spoke at this event along with traditional owners. I mention also that the petition against the nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory has some 6000 signatures to date.
What I have been attempting to demonstrate is that the people of the Northern Territory, the people of Alice Springs, reject the Commonwealth’s proposal of placing a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The real story behind this is that the Commonwealth government wants to put the waste dump here because they can. What we are seeing is the contempt of the Commonwealth government, these fly in/fly out politicians on a number of issues, as well as the nuclear waste facility. The people of Stuart want consultation on this issue. Indigenous people want economic development, but they want development that is sustainable, that is going to deliver outcomes for their communities and families.
There are many examples of sustainable economic activities in my electorate. The Tanami and Granites gold mines, the growing horticultural industry in the Anmatjere region, and the vast cattle stations are some. Tourism is a growing part of the Stuart economy. The small outstations of Black Tank, which recently won a Tidy Towns Award in 2004, and Harry Creek South are both developing small family-based tourism ventures just up the road from Mt Everard. These industries are sustainable. The Commonwealth should focus on assisting these communities with the development of sustainable industries, and not force nuclear waste facilities onto the people of the Northern Territory by trying to close down these small outstations. Diametrically opposed to the proposed Mt Everard site are the small communities of 16 Mile, Hamilton Downs and the Hamilton Downs youth camp. These small family-based outstations use the land around Mt Everard for hunting and traditional purposes.
Another big concern that people in my electorate have expressed to me is the transportation of this material to the waste dump. As we all know, the Tanami and Stuart Highways are major routes for the mining industry, tourists, pastoralists and local indigenous communities.
Mr Acting Speaker, there is great opposition to this in Central Australia and in the Territory. The site at Mt Everard is not a vast piece of empty land; there are people living close to this proposed site. I support this government’s stance on this issue, and oppose this proposal put by the Commonwealth government. I encourage the members for Araluen and Greatorex to stand up for Alice Springs and Central Australia, and talk to their mates in Canberra about consulting with the communities on this most important issue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. As we heard through some of the members’ contributions, it can be an emotive debate, and that can sometimes cause us to get off track from the real issue - particularly members of the opposition. They should have read the statement clearly instead of throwing accusations.
The member for Greatorex said: ‘Oh, it is a total fabrication and how dare you come in here and say these things’. The member for Nelson, because he quotes from one scientist, thinks that that one scientist and that view is the only view. He and the member for Greatorex went off on this long tangent about ‘we went to Lucas Heights’. They started sounding like Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men. I just wonder whether they went down in the plane together and held hands and then went off to Lucas Heights and had a very good trip. The whole point of this exercise of the statement and the debate was not about Lucas Heights the reactor. It was about the waste coming from that reactor and where it was going to go. They were completely right off the radar with any contribution to the debate.
I will try to go through most of the issues raised by members in the debate.
The member for Araluen said that she agreed with the threshold issues about not wanting a nuclear waste dump in the Territory but believes we were beating it up and being disingenuous. She had a superficial bleat about me beating up a scare campaign and that all we are dealing with is low- and intermediate-level waste, and that the federal government has been completely open about that. Not true, member for Araluen.
The member for Araluen should have attended an ANSTO session – and I am sure she did. With enough jumping up and down the federal government allowed ANSTO to visit Alice Springs – I would have to check with the member for Barkly about Tennant Creek – Katherine and Darwin with their picture show and their talk on what was being proposed. I went along to a couple of those sessions and if you were to ask any questions of those ANSTO scientists there were very guarded responses. People asked very innocently if this waste is low level and, if it is quite safe in New South Wales, why they want to transport it 3000 km across the country and put it in the Northern Territory. That simple question, which many people throughout the Northern Territory have asked, could not get any responses from ANSTO scientists, nor would any representative of the federal government give a straight response as to what the real story is and what the dump really was going to become.
My statement clearly outlined also that if there is going to be a waste dump, a repository, in the Northern Territory, be honest about it. Let us be open, let us be transparent; have the debate in the wider Northern Territory community, weigh up all the pros and cons, and see what that process involved.
I have already said why I did not go to Lucas Heights. It was not to look at the reactor that was generating the waste in the form of the rods that were going to France to be reprocessed. The reason for my overseas trip to France and Finland was to follow the rods that were going from Lucas Heights to France, to talk to the experts who were reprocessing those rods, and to get the facts as to how those waste levels are categorised, and the return of those reprocessed rods to Australia. It was to get those facts.
However, the members for Greatorex and Nelson are such advocates. I know that the member for Nelson keeps slamming my left credentials and nailing my socialist colours to the mast, and there cannot be any other view because it is pro-uranium and pro-nuclear. He has always criticised me and the EPA as being Claytons. The member for Nelson is a Clayton greenie. He comes into this Chamber, sees which way the wind is blowing and then he nails his flag to the mast after he sees the politics attached to it.
If the member for Nelson was so pro-nuclear waste dump, he should consult his electorate and ask them if they want a nuclear waste dump in Nelson. If those other sites are not suitable, we have a Defence area in the electorate of Nelson. The member for Nelson should do the right thing. If he is talking about, ‘Let us do the right thing for Australia for all Australians, this is our obligation, our responsibility, we should be the recipients of this waste dump’, then the member for Nelson should talk to every single one of his constituents, do a survey and say: ‘Good constituents of Nelson, we should put up our hands because we have an obligation and a responsibility to the nation to house and to become the dumping ground for the nuclear waste of Australia’.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I challenge you, member for Nelson. If you think this is the most honourable thing for the nation, you should do your bit. You should do your bit for the nation and you should talk …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Acting Speaker, when the member for Nelson was talking, I listened to his contribution. I was not sitting in my seat, but I was in the lobby and I listened to his contribution. I should be given the courtesy by the member for Nelson - who has had his say on this debate - to sit there and listen to the response. You cannot say something and not listen to the response …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson! Member for Nelson, please stop interjecting and allow the minister to finish her statement.
Mr Wood: She is baiting me.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Oh, precious!
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Well, don’t bite, you poor thing.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did not think I was baiting you.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: She is only small. She doesn’t take big bites.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Nelson needs to take on that challenge. He needs to do that on behalf of the nation instead of saying that these things should be elsewhere.
Back to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Araluen, who was so confident about saying it is low-level and intermediate-level waste. I would like to pose a couple of questions to her. How does she define it, please? If she is so knowledgeable she needs to define what is the criteria that makes waste low level, and intermediate level, and does that mean that they are somehow safe? I ask her: is intermediate-level waste safe? What is its …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will get to you, member for Greatorex, don’t worry. What is its radioactivity? If a person is exposed to low-, intermediate- or high-level waste, does she know what happens? What, in fact, is a safe level of exposure?
The public annual limit of exposure is 1 millisievert per year. Does she know that or know what it means? Does she know or is she blindly repeating the federal government line? She should also note that a parliamentary inquiry found that classifying waste as low-, intermediate- and high-level was not helpful and was misleading.
She had a look at the motion that I put to the federal government and said: ‘It does not even deserve my time’. That is fantastic because we will get this down. One of the most contentious issues is the misleading advertising that has been done in Central Australia about the parks, reserves and the joint management. They say that the issue about nuclear waste dumps is misleading and a total fabrication. Well, member for Greatorex, you have not seen anything yet. You have been totally misleading and fabricating a whole lot of mistruths about joint management and the parks and reserves, and you have the cheek and the gall to stand here, with your hand on your heart as if you are perfectly clear on all of this, and say that you tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth constantly. You need to look at yourself and the role that you play in misleading the community in terms of the joint management.
The member for Araluen said: ‘It does not even deserve my time’. This is the Leader of the Opposition who is treating Territorians, and especially the people of Central Australia, of her electorate, with utter contempt. She cannot be bothered standing up for their rights. We will let them know that this is what she thinks about it.
She talked about the medical benefits of it all, and so did the member for Greatorex. No one denies that. We do not deny the medical benefits, but do not be misleading that this is the only thing. The members for Nelson and Greatorex said: ‘You are denying’, and the Senator for the Northern Territory, Nigel Scullion, who ought to hang his head in shame, and ‘Nuke Dave’, the member for Solomon, who runs this line as well, says that we are denying cancer patients. I find that galling and insulting, Mr Acting Speaker; that people could actually use people’s suffering from this horrible thing as a means of running this debate. These people over there claim that we are falsifying and being misleading. Every single one of those members who used cancer patients in this debate ought to hang their head in shame.
You made strange comparisons with McArthur River, and so did the member for Blain. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Oh, well, we know all about it’. We know all about their position with McArthur River, but to raise it in this debate - or are they talking about the process? I completely missed the point there. The member for Blain said the same thing.
The member for Araluen also talked about site selection process and the history of the decision to put the dump in the Northern Territory. What I was dealing with in my statement and the motion is the current situation, not what it might have been if the South Australians had done something different. I noticed that the three of them all bleated - even the member for Nelson so I should say four of them; they are all the same colour, in terms of political solidarity …
Mr Wood: Oh, that is better. I was a bit worried there for a minute.
Dr Burns: He has a history on dumps.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Oh, Humpty Doo, that is right. I forgot about that.
Mr Wood: The toxic dump at Humpty Doo.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Johnston, I should not have said that.
Mr Acting Speaker, the fact remains that the site selection process was very dodgy, and none of the three sites had ever appeared in any report. If they had bothered reading my statement properly, I actually said that, in 1992, these guys were all standing up and bleating as if it was not there, and I had not gone through that process. I had also looked at that. In 1992, yes, under the federal Labor government, there had been this inquiry and this report. Nobody denies that, and I did not deny it; it is in the statement. But what was not in that report was where the site was. The Northern Territory was not part of the site selections in that report …
Mr Wood: Yes, it was. There are two reports.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Stop being misleading, because remember you guys said: ‘You have to stop being misleading, you have to stop being emotive and you have to stop. This is all a fabrication’. Well, the 1992 report did not have a single Northern Territory site in it. We all agree that the selection process was dodgy. The fact remains that the Commonwealth government could have overridden the South Australian decision to block the feds acquiring the selected site by declaring it a national park. However, the Commonwealth chose not to. Instead, they picked the Northern Territory.
We have heard from the contributors on the other side. Why did they pick the Northern Territory versus South Australia? Everyone says do not play politics with this: ‘How many seats for South Australia in federal parliament? The Northern Territory’s ‘Nuke Dave’ is dispensable; we could lose one seat. We could afford to lose one seat. We cannot afford to lose 10 seats in South Australia’. If we look at the whole process of this debate and this argument of why the federal government went down this road, and why the Northern Territory is having a nuclear waste dump dumped on it, it is because of 10 seats in South Australia versus one seat in the Northern Territory. We know one seat is better to lose than 10 seats in South Australia.
There were claims from the Leader of the Opposition of the NT government’s inaction in fighting the dump. Inaction! There have been a number of things done by this government - my trip and report from that; and we brought in the legislation which the CLP and the member for Nelson did not support. There are a number of initiatives that we have put in place to try to work with the wider community to get the information out.
I have some key themes that I believe need to be repeated. Through this whole thing, the federal government lied. This is a broken promise; that was clear through the statement. This is a broken promise and they lied. The Northern Territory does not want to be Australia’s dumping ground. Despite what the members for Nelson, Blain, and Greatorex say, this is high-grade nuclear waste, and they mislead us about that too. Canberra treats Territorians as second-class citizens. This government is standing up …
Mr Wood: What has that got to do with Lucas Heights?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, I keep digressing. I already touched on the member for Greatorex’s comment that it was total fabrication. That is the first burst of emotional energy I have seen in the member for Greatorex to do with this. That was good because this debate does get people a bit emotional. His position is that because there was a nationally agreed process in 1992 - and we went over that - we have to live with that now, and we should just accept having it imposed on us, unilaterally, by the Commonwealth. He talked about the Northern Land Council, but I believe the response of my colleague, the member for Barkly’s in his contribution …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, you have one minute left.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … that the Northern Land Council …
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the minister to finish her response.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Regarding the NLC, the member for Barkly’s contribution pointed to some answers there. Rather than the member for Greatorex playing politics with it and trying to say: ‘Oh well, the NLC is showing foresight on this’, the member for Greatorex does not really believe that because he believes in the politics that he can smell out of it. There are some biting issues that the member for Barkly raised, and answers that need to be forthcoming from the Northern Land Council regarding the traditional owners of Muckaty.
He criticised me for not going to Lucas Heights. Both he and the member for Nelson were united in that. As I said, so what? I did not go to Lucas Heights. I did not need to go to Lucas Heights. That was not the purpose of this. The purpose was - and before you …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Kiely: It is not about nuclear reactors. It is about nuclear waste dumps.
Mr Wood: Where do you think I am coming from?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said before, the member for Nelson walked in here – and the member for Greatorex feels brave now because he has two of his buddies to stand …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I actually said when the member for Greatorex was sitting there all on his lonesome that I did not need to go to Lucas Heights to have a look at what was there because the whole issue was about a waste dump and about the repository. It was about what was being done …
Dr Lim: Where is it now? Go and look at it for yourself.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hold on, hold on. It was about what was being generated. It was what was being generated at Lucas Heights, which is the fuel rods. It was to go and have a look at where those fuel rods were being reprocessed and what was proposed to be coming back to Australia and dumped on the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson and member for Greatorex!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There were enough of you mob running around Lucas Heights. It was looking at if we are going to have a central repository for Australia, then we needed to have a look at what is best practice; what is needed in Australia in terms of best practice both in the short-, medium- and long-term ...
Mr Wood: We have a nuclear research reactor, not a power plant.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There was no point in going to …
Mr Wood: There is a lot of difference.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, one minute. Member for Nelson, I have asked you a couple of times now to stop your interjections. The minister is trying to finalise her debate. You should give her some respect in that degree.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will look at you, Mr Acting Speaker, I will not look over there. He is provocative. They are the ones who are doing this.
Mr Wood: The statement is provocative. See the smile on her face.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, please continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The whole point of going to France and Finland was to look at how the process should be done properly - I am looking at you, Mr Acting Speaker, I will not look over there - including community control over siting of facilities. The member for Greatorex said the French legal opinion had no influence or effect on the reprocessing. I do not know enough about the French legal system to advise. Of course ANSTO will say the agreement is safe. There are still legal uncertainties with all of this. Ignorance prevails on the other side in terms of: ‘We will just take this at face value. Oh yes, our mates in Canberra say this is what is happening. Therefore, we should just accept …
Mr Wood: The scientists at Lucas Heights are dumb?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ‘Therefore, we should accept their word for it, that everything is okay. We have covered all the legal avenues on this. Trust us. This is not going to be bad for the Northern Territory’.
They even spin the line that it has an economic driver to it. Having looked at those repositories in both France and Finland, I was struggling to see what the economic benefits are. The spin that came out of Canberra and out of mouths of the CLP that this has an economic driver to it - maybe they have Peter Pan sitting on their desks telling them otherwise.
The member for Greatorex claimed low-level waste and intermediate storage of medium-level waste, but I think that I have done that to death. As I said in my statement, there are the issues of how we categorise that waste, internationally under best practice versus what is done in Australia, and how that process happens is going to be …
Mr Wood: It is your own Northern Territory government document.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … is going to be two different things.
I will table - the member for Nelson waves his little presentation of what he has there - the Radioactive Waste Management CEA Activities regarding one of the facilities in France I visited where the Australian waste is actually stored, La Hague, and some of the other areas in France. I table that for the Parliamentary Record because that presentation does go into the waste categories. They also have discussions with ANSTO on quite a number of those things.
The member for Greatorex, the Einstein of the CLP, said that Finland has made no final decision on disposal. I do not know where you get that from, member for Greatorex; that is exactly what their facility is about. His other claim is that there is no accurate information. The whole point about my description of Finland and France was that there is now open and transparent discussion, unlike the Australian government, which is dealing in ignorance, falsehoods and fabrication of definitions of levels of waste.
The whole side over there said that South Australia is being cowardly. I ask the members for Blain and Greatorex and the Leader of the Opposition whether they are brave enough to oppose their buddies in Canberra. Who is the coward here? Why was Senator Scullion not brave enough to oppose the legislation? If there are cowards in this debate, they all belong to the same camp as the members for Greatorex, Blain, Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition. You asked what we have done to ensure proper debate in the Territory. That is what today should be about - unlike the member for Araluen who told the parliament and the people of the Territory that this is not worth wasting her time on. Is this debate? She is the Leader of the Opposition and she could not be bothered spending her time on this.
What does Lucas Heights tell us? This is from the member for Greatorex. Other than where the stuff is coming from it does not tell us anything about where the Commonwealth is sending it to, and that is to us here in the Territory. He says he is now prepared to accept reality, that he supports the waste being dumped in the Territory. That seems like behaviour of someone not prepared to stand up for the Territory, and not brave enough to speak out for the Territory.
He claimed French waste is medium-level waste. If he thinks the people with whom I spoke in France, with ANDRA and the director of the CEA, were ordinary people – these are high-level scientific people with science backgrounds who provided the information. Is the member for Greatorex saying their view does not matter?
Dr BURNS: Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Dr Lim: You cannot have it twice, this is not fair. Come on, fair is fair.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: For clarification, the original extension of time moved by the member for Sanderson was for the suspension of standing orders so that the minister could complete her speech. The clock was set at 10 minutes, but it should not have been. The minister should finish her speech. There is no point or order. Please continue, minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you. I do not have far to go. Shame on the member for Greatorex because he went over time on his speech and we gave him an extension of time. It is a bit petulant of the member for Greatorex not to allow me time to finish my remarks, given that I had to listen to their responses and I am trying to address them.
This is an important issue for the Northern Territory. As I have said to all members on the other side, if this waste dump and this repository is good enough for the Northern Territory, then they need to clearly tell their electorates and they need to clearly tell the Northern Territory. They also need to tell the Northern Territory the facts rather than mistruths. This debate and the contributions of all members needs to go out to the wider Northern Territory community. We have an obligation and a responsibility as parliamentarians to stand here in the interests of all Territorians. This is a very important issue for the Northern Territory, and if the five members of the opposition feel that this is not an important issue for the Northern Territory, then they need to tell the truth about things.
Touching quickly on some of the key messages of my speech, I am well aware that the situation in this country regarding volume of nuclear waste is in a completely different category from France and Finland. I said that a number of times, even though members of the opposition kept wanting to point out that I had not done that and that I was fabricating the whole thing. What I did say very clearly in my statement was that we could learn a lot from how it is done elsewhere. France and Finland are two countries that have been dealing with nuclear energy, both as a power source and with research, for over 20 years - France for 25 years and Finland for nearly the same. They have gone through those exercises and processes.
If there have been other repositories built elsewhere then we should look at how it is done there. The same with America; the member for Sanderson pointed out what he had seen in America and the processes that are done and adopted by the United States government. We could look at those lessons overseas and we need to at least commit to long-term planning and to getting it right from the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with saying to the Commonwealth government: ‘Let us get it right, if you are going to do this’. Yes, the 1992 report was started under a federal Labor government - no one is denying that. If we need a central repository, let us get it right, and it needs to be right from the beginning because this is going to affect many generations to come. It needs to involve the local communities. They need to be on board with this and give them the rights in the process - not just lip service of public comment.
Plan and investigate different sites thoroughly and openly. They have not done that to date. They have just selected Mt Everard, Harts Range and the King River near Katherine - goodness knows where they have picked them from – but there certainly was no planning or investigation. They need to recognise that they need to get it right and resources are required.
Most of all, they need to be open about the process and the facility. In France and Finland, as I said, there was not one hidden agenda. With all the government officials and scientists we met with, both within government and also the NGOs, nothing appeared to be hidden. The mistakes were admitted. They were quite open about all of these things, and they have had problems in the past. They did not hide any of that, but they certainly went through with us what they have done to address where they have come up against issues with leakage and other things.
The French officials were quite frank with us that they wasted a few years. Certainly, much time was wasted by not realising the importance of community consultation and public sentiment. In Finland, they were not far from hiding the fact that the final nuclear waste storage facility has been built not far from Pori, as I said, in Finland. They have done a lot of work with the whole of the community, if not the whole of Finland - to Helsinki and other places getting the information out.
We are being short-changed by our federal government in the way they are dealing with Australia’s nuclear waste disposal issues. Despite what the - I hate saying CLP because the Liberal Party is starting to creep in there and there is a touch of the Nationals with the Independent members. However, this is an important issue. The motion is one of most importance. We need to send a strong message to the Commonwealth government about being open and transparent and about putting it on hold. John Howard, as I said in my statement, has in recent days talked about a nuclear power industry. I would like to see whether, at some stage in the forward estimates, there is any money on their books for a nuclear power generator. The member for Sanderson touched on the coal industry and having coal for 300 years. It will be interesting whether this is just a big smokescreen by the Prime Minister. I do not think he is going to upset his mates in the coal industry in favour of nuclear energy. I admit that we need to have the debate and to look at all of these issues. However, he needs to be a bit more honest as to why he is setting this inquiry.
I thank all members who have contributed to the debate, especially the members for Sanderson and Macdonnell. I have been in the member for Macdonnell’s office where there has been meetings with the traditional owners from the Mt Everard and the Harts Range sites, where they have been totally opposed to it. I thank the member for Stuart for his contribution, and the member for Barkly. The questions that he raised regarding of the Northern Land Council and Muckaty need to be addressed. I thank all members who contributed to this most important debate. I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 17 Noes 4
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Mr Bonson Dr Lim
Mr Burke Mr Mills
Dr Burns Mr Wood
Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, today I speak about how this government is improving the outcomes for people suffering from chronic disease in the Northern Territory. Chronic diseases include diabetes, lung disease, high blood pressure, renal disease and chronic lung disease. Heart disease, in particular, continues to be the No 1 killer of Territorians. Aboriginal Territorians have particularly high rates of chronic disease but chronic disease is not just a problem for the Aboriginal community. They affect Territorians from all backgrounds and walks of life living in all areas of the Territory. Most of the burden of disease for all Territorians is due to these conditions. In fact, they account for 22% of the disease burden for the non-Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory and 31% of the disease burden for the Aboriginal community.
Addressing this burden of disease is, obviously, a significant challenge for the whole of the Territory community. However, the good news is that chronic disease can be prevented. The even better news is that we are starting to make a difference as new evidence shows a slowing in the rate of chronic diseases. However, we cannot be complacent about these figures. They are only the beginning and a great deal more work is needed. I am committed to carrying on that work both personally and as a member of this government.
The improvements we are seeing now have no single cause. Turning the tide of chronic disease is the result of efforts by health professionals and researchers from both the government and non-government sectors over a long period of time. They also result from the efforts of the community itself which has been at the forefront of the struggle to put in place health services to detect, manage and treat chronic disease. The Australian government, too, has played a role through increased funding for primary health care over the last 10 years. The Northern Territory government has also played its part, for which I would especially like to thank my predecessors as Health minister, the member for Nightcliff and the former member for Stuart. Under their stewardship, the health system in the Northern Territory has seen greatly increased funding, up 64% in the five years since 2001.
We have also established a planned and strategic approach encapsulated in Building Healthier Communities, this government’s framework for improving health and community services for Territorians. A number of strategies within the Building Healthier Communities framework contribute to the prevention, detection and management of diseases from childhood to old age. I will address some of these in detail later in the statement, but first I would like to give you some background about the chronic diseases.
Chronic diseases have complex and multiple causes. They may even have their beginnings before birth and become more prevalent with the progression to older age. They usually have a gradual onset and become apparent throughout life. They are long-term and persistent, leading to gradual deterioration of health and, while not usually immediately life-threatening, they are the most common cause of early death. They affect peoples’ quality of life through their physical limitations and disabilities.
What can be done to tackle these diseases? I am pleased to note that the Northern Territory is nationally and internationally recognised for its approach encapsulated in the NT Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. The strategy focuses on, first, preventing these diseases; second, detecting the disease at an early stage through screening; and third, managing the condition well in both the primary care and hospital sectors. The Territory strategy was the first in Australia to include birth outcomes and infant nutrition as a preventative component of adult chronic disease strategy as well as the first to take on a comprehensive approach to these diseases.
A distinguishing factor of the Northern Territory’s approach is integration. The strategy focuses on the five common chronic diseases of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, chronic obstructive airways disease and ischaemic heart disease. All these diseases share common lifestyle causes and risk factors and, under the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, are not addressed as separate and unrelated problems. This is important as it assists us to use health resources more efficiently.
This approach recognises that these diseases are, in fact, strongly interlinked and that people frequently develop more than one disease. Dealing with these conditions as inter-related is also important for prevention because they have common underlying risk factors. Among these risk factors are poor nutrition and limited physical activity, which together are leading to high rates of obesity, poor environmental conditions which cause infection, alcohol misuse, tobacco smoking, childhood malnutrition, and low birth weight.
The Northern Territory’s Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy uses research evidence to determine priorities and investment. It is focused on bringing about changes across the health system, on reducing risks, on strengthening primary health care services and developing systems that support individuals and their families.
The health sector is mainly focused on ensuring early detection of these diseases and providing the recommended treatments to prevent complications. We have also been introducing systems to improve the coordination of care, including significant work on information technology which is recognised as an important component of effective delivery of health services for chronic diseases.
There has been significant effort invested in training health professionals. This is important, as research evidence is showing that health staff need to work in ways that are different from those in which they have been traditionally trained. Efforts to prevent these diseases have focused on early childhood population approaches to improve nutrition and physical activity and reducing the impact of tobacco.
It is important to also state that the health and wellbeing of Territorians are complex issues that reach beyond the scope of the responsibilities of the health system alone. Many other factors such as employment, education, housing and community infrastructure influence health status. In particular, it is important to note international research pioneered by Jack and Pat Caldwell demonstrate that education levels, particularly of women, are strongly associated with improved health. These social determinants require all areas of government to work in an integrated fashion to address the broader challenges to health and wellbeing.
I am pleased to report that the recent intergovernmental development of a National Chronic Disease Strategy has drawn heavily on the Northern Territory Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. The National Chronic Disease Strategy, signed off by Health ministers in 2005, provides national policy directions to strengthen chronic disease prevention and the management of chronic disease. It is designed to achieve improved outcomes through organised and systematic actions at all levels. The recommended directions and key priorities are highly consistent with the approach we have been taking in the Northern Territory. In addition, the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, is currently exploring a number of issues with specific relevance to chronic disease, and I understand that the Chief Minister’s Department and Northern Territory Treasury are leading this initiative with active support of the Department of Health and Community Services.
I will now outline some of the activities that we are currently implementing that will assist in reducing the impact of these chronic diseases. Giving kids a good start in life – our No 1 priority in the Building Healthier Communities framework - is a powerful way of preventing chronic disease occurring later in life. Every child in the Northern Territory deserves to get the best possible start in life. We know that the health of mothers during pregnancy, and that of their children during their early years, impacts on the prevalence of chronic disease in later life. Investment in antenatal care and child health services provides the greatest opportunity for long-term health gains. Quality antenatal care to ensure a healthy pregnancy, treating medical problems as they arise, attending to social risk factors - in particular, stopping smoking - and linking with family and other support services improves outcomes. This means fewer complications for mother, more babies born on time, healthy and of a normal birth weight.
Likewise, quality child health services will keep children on track so that they grow and develop and they are healthy, ready to learn and are prepared for school. This includes a broad range of services and supports, including regular child health checks, vaccinations, support for breast feeding, advice and support for good nutrition, dental care, early identification and prompt treatment of health problems, developing parenting skills, and linking to other support and social services. Children who are sick, undernourished or lack care and nurturing do not as well in all areas of life. So not only is improving kids’ early years an investment in their future adult health, but it will also have pay-offs in their future educational attainment and employment opportunities, and avoiding antisocial behaviour and crime.
The compelling evidence linking low birth weight and poor infant growth to the development of chronic disease in later life is one of the reasons why child and maternal health has been a strong focus for this government in recent years. This focus has contributed to significant maternal and child health gains in the Territory.
Particularly encouraging is the fact that the NT indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by a dramatic 36% in the last few years. At the end of the 1990s, the indigenous infant mortality rate was 25 per 1000 births. In the period 2001 to 2003, it was down to 16 per 1000 births. It is still too high, over double the non-indigenous rate of 6.5 per 1000 births, but the gap is narrowing and it is promising that the figures are moving in the right direction. There have also been small but steady improvements in birth weight and infant growth over the past five years. These positive changes can be traced to better child and maternal health services, as well as better resourcing of the health system overall. The Aboriginal community has made a key contribution to these achievements through their own actions and their own community-controlled health services.
These figures bode well for the future, but there is also more direct evidence of successes in the field of chronic disease. Recent data published by the Menzies School of Health Research and the Department of Health and Community Services in the Medical Journal of Australia shows that although death rates in the Northern Territory indigenous population from ischaemic heart disease and diabetes increased between 1977 and 2001, there was a slowing of this trend during the 1990s. The publication concludes that these early changes give reason to hope that improvements in primary health care put the brakes on chronic disease amongst Aboriginal Territorians.
Also impressive is the recent trend data from 2001 to 2003, which has shown a significant gain in life expectancy. This has particularly improved for Aboriginal women and is strongly linked to a reduction in deaths from chronic disease. It appears that the focused efforts within the health sector are achieving these positive outcomes.
There are also other encouraging signs that the preventable chronic disease strategy is positively impacting on health outcomes. For example, while NT rates of end-stage renal failure remain the highest in Australia at approximately 1300 new cases per million, they have not increased at the predicted rate. The survival of people on dialysis treatment has improved dramatically, especially in Central Australia. This reflects improved effectiveness within the primary health care sector, as well as within the renal sector. This close collaboration and cooperation across sectors appears to be especially effective for people with renal disease. Our primary health care sector is particularly aware and knowledgeable about screening and treating renal disease, and they are well supported by the acute care sector to manage complex cases.
This government has invested significantly in renal services, with expanded access to dialysis in both the major and regional centres, as well as in remote communities. Providing services close to home is an important component of Building Healthier Communities. I am pleased to report that access to lifesaving dialysis today is vastly improved from five years ago. In Central Australia, we have seen the recruitment of two kidney specialists, increased renal nursing staff, and the expansion of dialysis machines in Alice Springs. The dialysis facility at Tennant Creek, which we first established in 2002, is now fully utilised with 32 people now able to live close to home with family rather than be separated by long distances.
We are also funding an innovative approach to renal services with the Western Desert communities which have developed a ‘reverse respite’ program that enables all members to regularly and safely go home for short periods to stay with their families whilst continuing their dialysis supported by a renal nurse.
Another unique and important aspect of delivering health services in the Northern Territory is the close relationship between the health and research sectors. Cooperative research by clinicians and researchers in the area of renal disease is a good example of this. We have supported important research in the fields of effective communication with patients, especially across cultures, involving primary health care delivery, standards for renal services, and access issues for kidney transplantation. Much of this work has been of national significant, as well as influencing improved service delivery locally.
There is good evidence that nutrition programs which address food supply and demand can lead to reductions in the risk factors for chronic disease. Much work still needs to be done to improve the range, quality and cost of food in stores in remote areas of the Territory. However, the annual market basket surveys have shown improvements in both quality and availability of nutritional food in remote communities. The Remote Indigenous Stores and Takeaway project, a northern Australian initiative, aims to foster a community and industry culture which accepts responsibility of the store in contributing to the health of its customers. This is a good example of improving health outcomes by working with partners outside the health sector, such as business and transport industries.
Those of you who know me will know that I am particularly passionate about reducing the incidence of smoking in the community. Reducing rates of tobacco smoking is essential to reducing the future burden of chronic disease. My colleague, the member for Karama, has direct responsibility in the Community Services portfolio for the Alcohol and Other Drugs program. However, health staff within both primary care and the hospital sectors have an important role to play by supporting people to quit smoking and encouraging young people not to start. Doctors, nurses and health workers integrate this advice and support opportunistically when people are using health services. This may be for those with known chronic disease who are attending a health centre for routine checks or are in hospital because of complications.
Adult health checks that aim to detect chronic disease in an early stage also provide an opportunity to provide information and practical advice on health behaviours for tobacco, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity and emotional health. I understand that the Department of Health and Community Services is developing a comprehensive tobacco control and cessation program to be delivered in five remote communities. This involves collaboration across primary health care, child health, preventable chronic disease and alcohol and other drugs programs. The National Heart Foundation and Menzies School of Health Research are also actively involved.
Training the health workforce to deal more effectively with the detection and management of chronic disease has been recognised as an important priority. As previously mentioned, our long-standing methods of training health professionals to deal with an individual problem as it occurs are not ideal for dealing with chronic diseases. Instead, health professionals need the ability to work effectively within teams using structured and systematic approaches to delivering services. They must be able to communicate to a broad range of professionals and, most importantly, need to be able to support the individual person and their family to self-manage their illness in a cooperative partnership with health professionals.
In order to ensure health staff have the skills for this approach, a range of initiatives has been implemented to improve training and orientation including both accredited and non-accredited training. The Department of Health and Community Services is recognised as a major provider of the core training courses in chronic diseases and works closely with education partners including Charles Darwin University, Flinders University and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The GP Divisions and specialist colleges are also important partners in ensuring orientation and maintenance of current knowledge relating to chronic diseases in the NT. Non-government organisations provide postgraduate education for health staff, regularly participating in regional workshops, providing hospital training and, more recently, providing an increased emphasis on targeted training for Aboriginal health workers in diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
To further strengthen this new approach to chronic disease training, NT organisations, including the Department of Health and Community Services, Menzies School of Health Research and AMSANT, work with colleagues from Queensland under a program funded by the Australian government. They have developed a chronic disease curriculum and workforce training resources for primary health care workforce across Northern Australia. This work has been used to further develop chronic disease training in the Northern Territory to improve the Pathways Training program for remote area nurses and to ensure Aboriginal health workers have an effective focus on chronic diseases.
There are further improved training opportunities being explored with the partnership between the Department of Health and Community Services and Charles Darwin University in revising the nursing curriculum. The Northern Territory has been successful in the development of the Chronic Diseases Network which was also set up as a communication tool for stakeholders involved in chronic diseases. The network is steered by a group of government and non-government representatives who give advice and directions to the Chronic Disease Network Coordinator who works with the Preventable Chronic Diseases program in the Department of Health and Community Services.
As a communication networking and educational forum the Chronic Diseases Network produces The Chronicle newsletter published every two months and currently reaching 2000 readers. The network also stages an annual conference. The 10th annual conference held last month in Darwin focused on the need to broaden our engagement with other sectors outside of health in order to meet the challenges that chronic disease prevention and self-management present to us. The conference attracted 240 delegates from across the Territory and the rest of Australia. The high quality of the plenary speakers, with enthusiastic participation by a range of local presenters, ensured effective knowledge sharing.
The conference has a particular emphasis on ensuring the practical skills and strategies are shared to enable the broadest access to quality care. These chronic disease network conferences have been highly successful in attracting a large number of Aboriginal presenters and delegates.
A specific focus in implementing the preventable chronic disease strategy has been on improving the health system, particularly the primary health care system in remote areas. As mentioned previously, Aboriginal people have very high rates of chronic disease and early deaths due to chronic diseases. Effective primary health care and good systems to manage the relationship between primary and hospital and specialist care are critical to reduce complications, hospitalisations and early deaths. In recent years, a number of systems improvements have been put in place. For example, we are improving information and patient review through disease registers, client recall systems, best practice guidelines and care planning in health centres. We are also standardising the delivery of the ‘adult health check’ consistent with Medicare Australia requirements and best practice guidelines.
An accompanying training package has been developed in collaboration with the Top End Division of General Practice and may be used in urban as well as remote services. In addition, audits and subsequent workshopping with health centre teams are improving the quality of their management of diabetes and other chronic diseases, discharge planning from hospitals to community to ensure better coordinated care, and management of clients, standard treatment guidelines in the form of CARPA manuals and the Public Health Bush Book provide public health guidelines for practice.
Finally, information technology is benefiting our patients with improved patient information record systems and secure systems for e-mailing test results and discharge summaries and sharing of patient information using Health Connect. Another example of systems improvements leading to improved health outcomes lies in the management of the oral health treatment needs of people with chronic disease, particularly those requiring surgery. As a result of a more coordinated referral and scheduling program, cancellations of heart valve surgery in interstate hospitals due to the lack of dental treatment has virtually been eliminated in the last 18 months. This is significant in improving outcomes for these patients as well as reducing costs.
I have mentioned the importance of research in informing our delivery of health services. My department is actively engaged in research in a range of areas. One I would like to mention is the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease. The ABCD, as it is called, initially focused on assessing quality improvement approaches for chronic disease prevention and management in 12 Top End communities and was a collaborative project led by the Menzies School of Health Research and departmental staff. This research has now been extended to a national project jointly funded through the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, the Australian government and the Territory, New South Wales and Western Australian governments. Data analysis from the first stage of the project indicates there have been improvements in all key aspects of systems to support chronic illness care in participating health centres.
There have been improvements in delivery of services as well as health outcomes, which will, in the long term, improve the health of clients and reduce the complications of diabetes. This research is directly informing departmental and non-government health services of strategies to improve delivery in chronic disease care. A number of the indictors studied show that remote health staff are achieving results equivalent to and frequently better than the results from services in capital cities. This is a credit to the hard work of remote health staff and demonstrates that focused and sustained effort can achieve significant health gains.
There are a range of other important research projects under way through the CRCAH, Menzies School of Health Research, the Centre for Remote Health, and Charles Darwin University that will have useful findings for my department and other health services. The research involves a range of clinical issues, social issues, reducing risks and developing effective policies. All too frequently, effective service provision lags behind research due to the lack of processes to enable the take-up of the findings.
The Northern Territory is uniquely placed to take up research findings and rapidly incorporate them into routine practice. We have developed a strong culture of using local and international evidence to improve health outcomes in the Northern Territory through involving senior staff, the use of standard treatment guidelines throughout the NT, the development of research agendas with strong input from health professionals and community representatives, and the active use of local research findings.
The community and patients and the families of those suffering chronic disease are critically important to addressing these diseases. Listening to them as well as providing appropriate, effective, targeted information is, therefore, a critical aspect for engaging with these groups. Our non-government partners are particularly important in these aspects due to their community advocacy and support role. I would like to mention in particular a number of community and non-community groups such as Asthma NT, the National Heart Foundation, Healthy Living NT, and the Divisions of General Practice which provide information and support for patients and their families. They also frequently play an important role in professional education and advocacy on chronic disease issues.
One of the Department of Health and Community Services strategies for increasing community awareness and action is the Chronic Disease Storyboard. This is a communication tool that aims to raise awareness and understanding of the impact of chronic disease through storytelling. Encouraging the audience to develop their own stories relating to the impact of chronic diseases is particularly effective in actively engaging people in discussion. The purpose of the Chronic Disease Storyboard is to assist Aboriginal communities and groups to think about the issues that are impacting on their health and to prioritise actions that the community can take to address these issues. This process has been facilitated by the Department of Health and Community Services’ Aboriginal Health Promotion Officers across the Northern Territory. Health Promotion Officers work with community groups, non-government and government health services, and provide training to enable this method to be used broadly.
For long-term illnesses like chronic diseases, research shows that people achieve much improved outcomes and reduced hospitalisation if they develop self-management skills. Self-management is a term now used frequently in chronic disease discussions. It simply means encouraging patients to actively make decisions, along with their doctors and care team, about how best to manage their illness. It is recognition that most of our health care is provided by ourselves through our choice of food, taking of medicines, and so on. This is an area where our non-government partners and the Aboriginal community controlled sector have been providing leadership for the Northern Territory. For example, two large Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, the Katherine West Health Board and Danila Dilba Aboriginal Medical Services, have self-management programs which have provided important strategies for delivering self-management more broadly.
The Department of Health and Community Services and Congress in Alice Springs jointly sponsored training for Central Australian health staff in self-management skills and, along with Health Living NT, are further collaborating in delivering self-management programs in Central Australia. Also, the Arthritis and Osteoporosis NT Foundation provides training in self-management for people with chronic disease, as well as training for health professionals. This is a difficult area and requires a shift in thinking of both health professionals and patients. However, with the active support of these partners and the GP Divisions, I am confident we are moving forward in self-management programs.
In summary, we have done well in reorienting the health system, in particular our primary health care services, to achieve improved service delivery and outcomes. We are seeing improvements in prevention and health promotion, especially in maternal and child health, improved food availability and quality in remote stores, and are implementing more coordinated efforts in tobacco control. We are working with a strong evidence base, drawing on both local and international evidence. Some of our important questions will be answered over the next few years from current local research. We have a strong, integrated non-government sector which works very cooperatively with my department on chronic disease issues. The Aboriginal community-controlled health sector and the GP Divisions are both strongly committed to improving outcomes in chronic diseases and actively support quality improvement processes to achieve this.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there are still many challenges. The burden of chronic disease is still a major problem. We have begun making inroads into the problem, but there is still a great deal more to do. However, I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. I look forward to providing updates on progress in the future.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting the statement today. With his background as a researcher at the Menzies School of Health Research, I notice that there was a significant thread within the statement that appears to have come from the minister personally. I assume that would have come from his background within the Menzies School of Health Research.
Listening to the minister’s statement, I am not sure whether he is talking about chronic diseases amongst Aboriginal people in the Territory, or about chronic diseases across the whole of the Territory, speaking about Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. However, his statement is probably almost all about Aboriginal people and the chronic diseases from which they suffer.
Without a doubt, our health expenditure, particularly in chronic diseases, is pretty high. If you look at the Indigenous Expenditure Review, September 2006, put out by the government just recently, it definitely gives strong indication that chronic diseases feature very strongly in the burden that our indigenous population suffers. For instance, with ischaemic heart disease, it is almost nine times as high as you would find in non-indigenous males, indigenous males having 237.5 per 100 000 population rate - that is the mortality rate - versus 33.1 amongst non-indigenous males. Likewise, with indigenous females: it is 102.7 per 100 000 death rate versus non-indigenous females of 6.2. The list goes on. I refer you to page 29 of the report. Diabetes in indigenous males is 73.6, whereas in non-indigenous males, it is only 3.5. Diseases that feature high in the list include diseases of the liver, other forms of heart disease, and mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use. Those are the five or six major diseases that kill our indigenous Territorians.
However, when you look at the list of those diseases, while they are chronic diseases, they are also lifestyle diseases. Somehow, we need to factor in what can we do with these lifestyle diseases and see if there is any way of influencing their lifestyles so that their health profile improves. I have, for several years now, frequently referred to a manuscript written by Professor John Mathews, the first director of the Menzies School of Health Research. In about 1999, I believe, he wrote the manuscript entitled Historical, Social and Biological Understanding is Needed to Improve Aboriginal Health. I suspect that some of the comments made by the minister in his statement might have come from there as well. What the minister has said about lifestyle diseases and chronic diseases, and the thinking behind the causes and how to rectify the illnesses were reflected by Professor John Mathews in 1999. For those of you who have not read the manuscript - including you, minister, if you have not read it - I strongly encourage you to read that manuscript. I believe it is a very detailed and worthwhile treatise by Professor Mathews, going through the history of our civilisation through to the disadvantage that Aboriginal people in the Territory faced during the last 30 to 50 years, and the slow climb that they have made to gradually improve in their health stance.
Talking about health and about lifestyle and chronic diseases, the first thing we need to consider is: what can we do with our lifestyles? Is there any way we can improve them? I was misquoted a few years ago by the former member for Stuart and the current member for Wanguri when they accused me of saying that Aboriginal people are unclean. What I said was that we all need to attend to our personal and our community hygiene. That is important. For centuries in Europe people did not understand hygiene and that was one of the reasons why the Black Plague caused such devastation in those days. With the understanding of hygiene, both of the individual as well as the community, people’s health improved hugely. That appears not to be the case for all our communities in the Northern Territory nor for many individuals. One of the basic primary health matters that we can encourage and education and disseminate is about hygiene and with that I am sure other things will come along and I will talk about that in a little while.
The minister commented that the federal government has played a major role as well with an increase of funding for primary health care in conjunction with the Northern Territory. He made special reference to his predecessors, the Health ministers, the member for Nightcliff and the former member for Stuart. I would add the former member for Drysdale, the former member for Katherine and the former member for Brennan. They were all Health ministers who played their part in improving health care in conjunction with the federal government.
I am glad to hear the minister say that there is a positive trend, albeit very slow, that the health status of indigenous people and the instance of chronic diseases is slowly improving. So it should. For many years there has been a lot attention paid to try to deal with health before illness sets in and before chronicity of the illness sets in.
When we talk about chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and renal diseases, you need to go back to a person being a baby during the antenatal period when a healthy pregnancy will result in the delivery of a healthy baby without all the precursors such as poor kidneys at birth. Those are things that could actually provide a good start for a newborn and you go from there. Living in communities, water is always an issue. Flies are always a problem. Camp dogs are a major problem whether they are in the urban camps around major centres or, indeed, small communities out in the bush. These dogs carry many infections and have the potential of spreading infection to the children who play in the vicinity, if not with the dogs themselves. The children will then pick up many of the diseases that the dogs carry.
We know that scabies is a major issue. Other bacteria that live in the dirt that the children play in are also major causes of problems, particularly when the skin gets degraded either through physical trauma being in contact with the ground and with the dirt, or being bitten by the scabies mite. We know about the development of skin sores as a result of those forms of injury and the opportunistic way these sores get not so much infected but invaded, I suppose, by the bacteria, particularly staphylococcal. These bacteria lead to not only skin infections, but potentially chronic renal diseases as these infants grow into adulthood.
In referring to Professor Mathews’ manuscript, there is a diagram in the early part of his manuscript which provides a flow chart of how good social cohesion and equity can lead to good health through self-respect, aspiration and responsibility of the individual in a community; through knowledge and resourcing provided within the community and society; and the provision of equitable and accessible education and employment. These all feed into each other, auspiced by good administration and a society that has alcohol and recreational drug use under control; a better environment where there is good food, good housing, and sanitation and water supply leading to good hygiene, with a good administration providing good health service which will lead to freedom from infectious diseases. So with good food, good health service, freedom from infectious diseases, you end up with good health. That is a good concept to develop to then introduce good health for all Territorians.
We have to recognise the history of how indigenous people got there. It was an interesting story that Professor Mathews quoted about the ‘penny gin’ era in Europe where alcohol became the scourge of European society and what that led to in terms of ill health. Unfortunately, we see the same thing occurring in the Northern Territory with the introduction of alcohol into a society that did not have a long and slow socialisation with alcohol, and the abuse of alcohol that came with its introduction led to issues of obesity, liver problems, hypertension and associated problems with that.
The primary health care service the minister talked about obviously has to play a major part in the control of chronic illnesses. However, if the minister recalls, about three or four years ago this government cut back on primary health care funding in preference for funding for acute care in hospitals. There was a huge reaction to that cut. I recall when many senior public servants in the Health department complained, albeit behind closed doors, about the cuts they had suffered and the limitation of programs they could conduct with the lack of funds.
The government should recognise that the department is still trying to catch up. The funding has improved in the last couple of years, but there is still a lot of catch-up to do because of the failure to recognise that primary health care was important. The lack of funds a few years ago caused significant deceleration of the programs that had been going ahead fairly well.
The minister then spoke about programs that he was very pleased with. He spoke about the Chronic Disease Network. I am glad you like that, because it was a program that, in fact, was started under Country Liberal Party government in 1997. It was introduced in response to the documented rising impact of chronic diseases in the Northern Territory and the need to link stakeholders to improve communication and coordination of chronic disease programs and services. Reading from a quote from the website titled Chronic Disease Network, I understand the CDN has 800 members across the nation - and that is terrific - representing 90 government and non-government organisations. That body, with so many organisations and individuals involved, can have great cross-cultivation and sharing of ideas, which is a good way to enable and to assist the Northern Territory in developing good policies to ensure that, in particular, our indigenous Territorians are cared for and to minimise the adverse impacts that chronic diseases might have on their lives and their population.
The minister mentioned The Chronicle, the monthly bulletin which delivers timely updates and summaries on Northern Territory and interstate projects, and also about their annual workshop, the last one carried out in Darwin. I am sure the minister is also aware that there are moves afoot to try to get the workshop interstate and elsewhere, and to also facilitate regional workshops across the Northern Territory. The Chronic Disease Network also has a resource centre, which forms a one-stop shop for information on what is happening in chronic diseases in the Northern Territory. I am sure the Menzies School of Health Research also has a huge input into this because of the specialised type of research that they do on chronic illnesses in the Northern Territory.
I do not know whether the minister heard the radio this morning. The commentator was saying that Aboriginal women have five times as much chance of dying in childbirth than non-Aboriginal women, and that reflects the quality and the quantum of antenatal care that Aboriginal women receive during their pregnancies. While most non-Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory would seek the services of a medical practitioner, if not an obstetrician/gynaecologist, to care for them during the pregnancy, and then to seek the services of a good hospital or birthing suite to have their babies, we know that many indigenous women still do not present themselves for medical or midwifery services until very late in the pregnancy. If you do not get good antenatal care, you miss out on a good diet, you miss out on the issues of blood pressure checks, kidney or bladder infections that might impact on the wellbeing of the mother, thus affecting the baby. We need to spread this information about early antenatal care to all indigenous women, particularly those living in the bush, and how important it is to get good antenatal care so that their pregnancy and the babies will be born in the best condition possible and starting life with the best advantage you can possibly get.
The direct evidence that the minister spoke about is not as evident as it can be. We see some trends happening but, when you look at the number of acute services that have been provided at our general hospitals across the Territory, and notice that patients’ services generated by these hospitals - some 70% to 80% of them - are provided for indigenous people, then you have to say that something is not right. If we are making some impact into chronic illnesses, we are actually getting many acute problems that appear to be occurring in the same people because we have very much a rotating door syndrome. Acute problems occurring in one person will eventually lead to chronicity, as we all know. Therefore, we need to deal with those issues as well, recognise that the frequent presentations in hospitals may give some indication as to what is going on regarding long-term diseases.
We know that renal disease continues to be a problem for us in the Territory. Some 10 years ago, the prediction was that the treatment of renal disease in the Territory may consume more than half the Northern Territory’s entire budget each year. That is a scary thought; that we have so many renal patients in the Territory that half the Territory’s budget would be consumed in the treatment of them. I am pleased - and I say that wholeheartedly - that my concerns about spreading dialysis all across the Territory into bush communities as well have proven to be unfounded. I had great concerns that, by putting dialysis machines out into communities, it might produce more harm than good. However, it has turned out that patients are choosing to stay home, or at least returning home for short spells, with their dialysis machines. It improves their lifestyle and their psychological wellbeing, if nothing else, to be with family and friends in their own homes, and it has worked out. However, having said that, there is obviously a significant cost that has to be borne, and the government has borne it - and so be it. At least the people are benefiting from that.
Let us come back to nutrition. Nutrition is always a major issue. You will recall that in the year 2000, I chaired the Territory Food Price Review. That select committee included the now Deputy Chief Minister. We travelled around the Territory to all regional centres and many remote communities speaking to the store owners or store holders and managers of the stores to see how they managed with the provision of good food out in the bush. Many people do not understand that people on fixed income have, on many occasions, struggled to stretch their fixed income to buy the food they need to survive on. Whether you live in Redfern in Sydney, Salisbury in Adelaide, or out in one of the bush communities, the income support pension is exactly the same, yet you can buy a can of baked beans a lot cheaper in Redfern or Salisbury than you can buy one in Yuendumu, Papunya or Finke. Accordingly, your welfare cheque is not going to be able to buy you as much food as you would in southern locations. Also, fresh food, in particular, out in the bush tends to be less nutritious. They are picked a lot earlier and when they get to the stores, they are not as nourishing as they can be. Food is more expensive because of the spoilage that occurs as the store manager would have to put a higher mark-up on the food to compensate for the spoilage. All those issues mean that it costs more to buy food and you get less for the money you have.
I am sad to say that the program to encourage all stores to stock good, fresh food is not widely followed. I am sorry to say that many stores continue to rip off the people who shop in their shops. There is still a lot of fried food available in those stores. The fast food exists not only in our regional centres with fried chicken or hamburgers and fried dim sims and the like. It would be good to see them taken out the shops altogether and somehow not quite mandate, but at least strongly encourage, stores to have fresh food, fewer drinks with high sugar levels and carbonated drinks. That might help people living out bush to have better food. If you do not have carbonated drinks out there, people just cannot buy them. They have no choice. Maybe that might be the way to do it.
I do not have much time left so I am just going to rush through a little. Minister, you spoke about your personal interest in cutting back on or reducing the abuse of tobacco - I would not say use - in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory continues to receive the Dirty Ashtray Award. You have to work harder to try to stop that. I am glad to see that the government has now proceeded to inspect premises for breaches of smoking within licensed premises and the like. You should take the next step and ensure that your legislation is enforced properly and, maybe, start to look at other premises that ought not allow smoking at all. I have spoken to people in the Good Health Alliance and they are not as encouraged by the actions of your government as they would like to be. I say that you need to work harder at it.
Minister, you also spoke about the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease project. I understand that this is a project undertaken by the Menzies School of Health Research and it started late last year. I have not had the time to peruse the report they have produced but it appears that it is starting to provide some key lessons and indications of future plans for the government to follow to provide some measures to deal with chronic health. I wish you luck. I would like to see more of this report to tell us how you are progressing with chronic health in the Northern Territory.
In closing, I recommend that you read John Mathews’ manuscript.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the Minister for Health’s statement on chronic disease. In researching the subject of chronic disease, glaringly obvious is the link between chronic disease and obesity.
The US Department of Health and Human Services notes that being overweight or obese raises the risk for Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, angina pectoris, stroke, asthma, osteoarthritis, muscular-skeletal disorders, gall bladder disease, sleep apnoea and respiratory problems, gout, bladder control problems, poor female reproductive health, complications of pregnancy, menstrual irregularities, infertility, irregular ovulation, and cancers of the uterus, breast, prostate, kidney, liver, pancreas, oesophagus, colon and rectum.
Indeed, obesity has been labelled by quite a number of commentators as being of epidemic proportions and, by what I have come to understand, this may well not be the overstatement that I first thought was the case.
As I understand it, Australia comes in third on the obesity scale with approximately 21% of our population obese, which, I might add, is a group that I belong to. The United Kingdom is second with around 22% of its people falling into the obese category, and it will not come as a shock to learn that around 31% of the United States population is categorised as being obese. From 1989 to 2001, the prevalence of obesity in the Australian population increased from 9.5% to 16.7%.
In a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, it was found that as the population got older, it got fatter, particularly in the 45- to 64-year-old range. The good news is that people in the 20- to 24-year-old age range were the least represented in the obesity population. The report highlighted that obesity was more likely to be prevalent in the indigenous population and the proportion of the overall population that has less capacity to earn, including people without post-school qualifications.
These findings surely must send signals to our community in the Territory that we need to do something and we need to do it now. Government is showing leadership through its Northern Territory Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, but we also must look to ourselves to take charge in improving our own health outcomes by improving our lifestyle, particularly in the areas of exercise and nutrition.
In the Northern Territory, we have a very good network of government and non-government organisations that work tirelessly to help educate and manage survivors and potential candidates for chronic disease. We have the National Heart Foundation Northern Territory which actively promotes healthy lifestyle programs to reduce cardiovascular risk. These include Just Walk It, a series of walking programs; Jump Rope For Heart, a skipping program aimed at schools which promotes not only physical activity but a high level of skill; and a new program is Eat Smart, Play Smart, aimed at after-school programs which provide educational resources for coordinators to these programs. There is the Arthritis and Osteoporosis Northern Territory, the Arthritis Foundation of the Northern Territory Incorporated, which provides support, advocacy, information and education for people affected with osteoporosis and muscular-skeletal diseases. Management also includes the promotion of self-management courses. The organisation also provides education to promote prevention.
Our GP Divisions are very important in supporting improved outcomes in chronic diseases. They have dedicated staff to work with GPs. They have been particularly focused on improving information technology systems within general practice. This is seen as critical in improving information sharing between hospitals, specialists, GPs and pathology services. Effective information sharing will continue to improve outcomes for people with chronic diseases. GP Divisions are supporting implementation of point-to-point, which enables safe transfer of health information via encrypted e-mail. Information technology systems also ensure recall systems function well, which are very important for people with long-term illnesses.
The division will also promote effective brief intervention in general practice through live scripts, which provide practical information on how to make those difficult lifestyle choices; that is, things like quit smoking or lose weight. The Top End Division runs regular educational sessions for practice nurses who are often key members of the GP team for chronic disease programs. They provide immunisations, do routine checks and organise care plans.
Asthma NT is also funded by DHCS. They provide education on both asthma and chronic lung disease for patients and their families. They also provide community education and awareness campaigns. They actively participate in health professional education through the GP Divisions of DHCS. They have collaborated with DHCS and the Education department in developing asthma policies for schools to ensure teachers and other students are aware of asthma and how to manage this effectively.
Healthy Living NT provides diabetes education for individuals and families, community education on diabetes, and health professional education. They are also involved with education about cardiovascular disease, in particular cardiac rehabilitation, which aims to support people who are recovering from acute cardiac events, such as heart attack and heart surgery, and to maintain their heart health. They also provide training and resources for health professionals in cardiac rehabilitation.
Danila Dilba Health Services support the provision of primary health care services to town camp areas in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. The organisation receives the bulk of its funding from the Australian government. The services provided include prevention activities, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of chronic diseases, including client recall systems.
Bagot Community Incorporated, which is the Bagot Health Centre, provides comprehensive primary health care services, primarily to members of the Bagot Community, Minmirama Park and Kulaluk communities. The services provided include prevention activities, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of chronic diseases, including client recall systems.
Within the Department of Health and Community Services, community and primary health care services are provided through the community and primary care stream in Casuarina and Palmerston Community Care Centres. The focus in this stream is on adult health. Activities include prevention, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of a range of chronic diseases. The service is used as a primary health care framework which supports client engagement, empowerment and self-management. It also actively engages in the development of collaborative partnerships with other providers in the urban environment. Staff have received training in early and brief intervention and chronic disease management. Prevention is also supported through the provision of immunisations through the Northern Territory schedule, support for clients diagnosed with chronic disease or diseases. It also occurs through activities such as school vaccinations to at risk clients.
The Child, Youth and Family Health service stream provides a range of services around the prevention and early intervention of chronic diseases. These include the home birth services in the monitoring, education and prevention of causal lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol and nutrition, to promoting the best health outcomes for the newborn. Child and Family Nursing Services support education and information on breastfeeding and infant feeding, attachment, health and developmental assessment, and education and advice to parents and families on preventative lifestyle factors. Health promoting school nurses provide education, support and information on health promoting practices in areas such as alcohol and other drugs, social and emotional wellbeing, nutrition, physical activity, and reproductive and sexual health. DHCS nutrition staff also provide individual education and counselling, but particularly focus on group education through health services, schools and town camps. They have worked closely with the Education department to introduce school canteen policies, promoting healthy foods for school children, especially reducing high fat and sugar foods.
This leads me on to the subject of childhood obesity. Longitudinal studies in Brisbane have found that fat babies or infants become fat children, fat adolescents and fat adults. Obesity in children can be caused by a number of factors, such as genetics or lifestyle, or a combination of unhealthy eating patterns and lack of physical activity. Members only need to make a casual observance when they go shopping, and I am pretty sure they will see children, with or without their parents, eating chips and soft drinks or tucking into ice creams and donuts. I would hazard a guess that they will not see too many children eating a piece of fruit or a sandwich.
Childhood obesity is, in itself, a major social problem and was the reason for a summit held by the New South Wales government in 2002. In the context of this statement on chronic disease, it is relevant to note that one of the findings of this summit was that children who were overweight or obese are more likely in the short term to develop gastrointestinal, endocrinal, or certain orthopaedic problems than children of normal weight, and are more likely in the longer term to develop cardiovascular disease. To overcome or combat the tendency towards excess weight or obesity, it is recommended that children decrease time spent watching television or playing video games, that the family needs to be encouraged to take up activities that are enjoyable for all, and that children and their friends are encouraged to participate in organised sport. It is important to note that while this may be the recommended course of action for children of school age, it is not necessarily the best option for preschool children.
A recent study in the British Medical Journal of children with an average age of 4.2 years led to the conclusion that children who are involved in an active play program are more likely to improve their motor skills rather than lose weight. However, this improvement in motor skills could lead to increased physical activity and a smaller waistline in the future.
What then does the opposition have to say about Leanyer Recreation Park? As members will recall, the CLP opposition was scathing in their attacks on this great family facility right from the start. In line with their attitude to other health initiatives that the Martin Labor government has introduced into our community, the CLP heaped ridicule upon ridicule, saying the development of the Leanyer Recreation Park was a waste of taxpayers’ money. You only have to go past Leanyer Recreation Park any day of the week to see how right the Territory government was and how wrong was the CLP. The irony of having one of their candidates run their campaign advertisements featuring the park was not lost on me or the constituents of Sanderson. Why I bring Leanyer Recreation Park into this debate is because families with preschool children use this park quite a lot. Whenever I visit, I am sure to see mums and dads, grandparents and carers there, with their little kids running around the park, playing on the swings, enjoying the water features, or learning to ride their first bike.
This is what the British Medical Journal was on about. Those children who do this sort of activity have more chance of being active and carrying less weight than those kids who are not encouraged to get out into the fresh air and move about. I take the members back to the observation made earlier: fat babies or infants become fat children, fat adolescents and fat adults. Fat adults are more likely to suffer from chronic disease than adults in a healthy rate range.
Physical inactivity is not the only factor that leads to childhood obesity; diet has a lot to do with it as well. Children should be encouraged to limit their intake of junk foods and soft drinks. Parents need to work with their children and develop good eating habits based on healthy food options. Water needs to be the drink of choice for a thirsty child. These are things that parents need to commit to if they want their children to have a better quality of life in the long term: a healthy breakfast, eating as a family, and not using food as either a reward or punishment are things that we all can do. Unfortunately, we all do not.
I know that the government has a role to play in helping to reduce the number of people suffering from chronic disease. I have heard in recent weeks the member for Blain in the media about how the CLP would legislate what foods school canteens can sell to kids. The member for Blain backed up his call for this legislation with a colour coded food labelling system, suggesting red for occasional food that should only be sold twice a term; amber foods you select carefully so that these foods should be avoided in large serving sizes; and green-labelled food should be encouraged and promoted in school canteens. A good idea, member for Blain, but I wish you had gone that one step further and given schools the option to contact the New South Wales School Canteen Association, from where you ripped off the idea, so that you could see how to manage this great idea without the fear of taking away the right from parents and children, and that school canteens would fold because nobody would buy peanut butter and celery sticks.
I will just get away from the chronic disease for a moment because, this morning, the member for Blain made a personal explanation where he said:
I will say that again - Healthy Eating School Canteen Policy:
I looked at the CLP site and I cannot find the policy. That aside, he tells me that is his policy. However, I did go to the website www.health.nsw.gov.au/obesity/adult/canteens - bit familiar! - and there is a media release: ‘Premier Launches New South Wales Health School Canteen Strategy’:
…
Then it goes on to say:
Oh yes?
Mr Acting Speaker, I will table that too because, member for Blain, you can cut and paste it on to your website. There you are. Just attribute where it comes from, that is all. I seek leave to table these documents.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: I took the member for Blain’s suggestion about the healthy eating to one of my school councils. When they met they were responsive to improving the menu for their children, but they were dead against being told what to do by government. This good idea has been soured because the member for Blain could not or would not let on that the idea was not his. If he had been honest …
Mr Mills: I never said it was my idea.
Mr KIELY: … and attributed the idea to where it rightly belonged, and directed school councils to the NSW School Canteen Association’s website, we might have had a more positive result. This is shameful politics and you have been caught out, member for Blain.
There are other programs in other jurisdictions being implemented that the member for Blain might like to champion as long as he does not feel threatened to disclose that they are not new and not something unique to the all-caring CLP. I would like to suggest to him a walking school bus. This is something I believe government should get involved in and it is something that I took up with the previous minister for Education some while ago. The idea of the walking school bus was not mine and it actually came from some parents and teachers at Anula Primary School. In essence, kids walk a designated route to school and are chaperoned by two adults. Children join the walk along the way so there is that added peace of mind that parents now want in this day and age. It is also a good exercise machine. As I understand it, DEET has been undertaking a thorough investigation of this idea and has identified a number of hurdles that may need to be overcome before they will consider such a program. These hurdles are things like police checks of the adults, training, and liability as well as being able to guarantee the sustainability of the program. I am hopeful that they will because I can think of no finer way for kids to start the day than to walk to school.
Much is said about childhood obesity but we, as a community, are also on the precipice of an increase in obesity rates for our ageing population. The increases are having significant impacts on the number of people with chronic disease. Issue 12 of Australian government’s Australian Institute of Health and Welfare bulletin dealing with obesity trends in older Australians is well worth the read. Straightaway the reader is drawn to the statement that Australians have put on a lot of weight during the past 20 years. This is a serious situation because of the strong link between excess body weight and various chronic health problems that continue into our older age. We are living longer, getting fatter and getting sicker. The implications for our health system are enormous.
We can see here in the Territory, and across Australia, the challenge of recruiting health staff to meet the demand for hospital admissions and outpatient caseload. This is the challenge that we are meeting better than most jurisdictions largely due to 64% increase in the health budget and the hundreds of extra hands-on health professionals this government has employed since coming to office. More and more federal, state and territory health budgets are being challenged by demand and it is not getting any less.
Older Australians - and that means people 55 and above – have, on average for men, gained 8 kg more than what they weighed 20 years earlier, and women over the corresponding period have gained 12 kg. Men and women are now no longer losing weight as they are getting older. Over the last 20 years, our nation has seen a tripling of the number of aged people who are obese. The number is now estimated to be close to one million individuals. The reason given for this is the dietary over-consumption of energy and a decrease in physical activity. Excess weight in older people can and does lead to chronic disease such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and just about the whole range of diseases that I mentioned earlier.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the Assembly that while we, as a community, are facing quite a challenging situation, on an individual level the activity of our senior Territorians is to be applauded. Every Tuesday you can go to the Darwin Golf Club, which I might say is in the electorate of Sanderson, and catch up with around 100 or so senior Territorians as they play competition golf. I have met quite a number of these players and had the good fortune to sponsor a competition or two courtesy of the efforts of the club captain to squeeze a few bob out of their local MLA. These golfers keep themselves in good health and are role models for all senior Territorians. The captain, Harry Cohen, a long-time Territorian and ex-Department of Justice executive officer, is somewhere around the 70 mark. He is fit, healthy and, at a glance or even up close and being scrutinised, his age is hard to pick. This is unusual amongst this group of Territorians. If ever an advertisement for senior Territorians keeping active is required by any organisation I suggest they go to Darwin Golf Club any Tuesday for that is where they will find the role models.
An ageing population is something new to us in the Territory. For years, it was almost always the case with the exception of older families like the Bonsons, the Cubillos and the Chins, and all those old families and all the other fifth generation Territorians, that when you reached retirement it was off to Queensland or Western Australia. We did not really have too many older people around and about our streets. This was for a range of reasons, mostly I feel due to lack of extended family, cost of living on fixed income, and the harder environmental living conditions. We now appear to have overcome many of these factors and we are seeing first and second generation Territorians staying. Our families are growing and we have to a large extent overcome our inability to stay comfortable during the build-up. This trend has manifested itself into a greater workload on our health system, and I applaud government for the approaches it has taken to come to grips with the increase in chronic diseases.
Mr Acting Speaker, we have a long, hard road ahead of us in the management of chronic disease in the Territory. We can see now that people are sitting up and taking note of what they can do to help themselves lead a better quality of life in old age by addressing lifestyle changes in their early and more active years.
Mr WARREN: Mr Acting Speaker, I move a the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KIELY: This lesson has not been lost on me. Over the last year, two good friends whom I have known since my teenage years have had heart attacks. One of them lives in Alice Springs and the other in Darwin and both were full of praise for the support they received from our health system and from organisations like Healthy Living NT.
I am aware of my weight issues and I am starting to modify my lifestyle to bring about a slow but sustainable program of weight loss. I do this for my family and for myself. I will also be helping our community if I can keep myself free from chronic disease. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the minister on his statement.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Speaker, chronic disease is a most relevant and important matter in my electorate of Stuart and to many Central Australians. Reflecting on the minister’s speech, for me, the most significant point he made was that we can prevent chronic disease and many of its associated complications. This is a message that we need to reinforce in the community.
I often feel that we in the community focus too much on the treatment aspect of a sickness and not what causes it and how we can prevent it. I was pleased to hear the minister say that we are starting to make a difference, but that we cannot be complacent about these improvements. I acknowledge the good news in health, with the improvements to indigenous womens’ life expectancy and the reduction in indigenous infant mortality rates. As the new member for Stuart and a member of this government, I am committed to making a difference in reducing chronic disease amongst the people of Stuart and all Territorians.
What is chronic disease? As the minister stated, it includes diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, renal disease and chronic lung disease. When I heard the minister define what chronic disease included, I immediately thought about many of my indigenous constituents and family members. I am personally committed to making a difference because as an Aboriginal Territorian, I know only too well the devastating effect chronic disease has on the individual, family and community. Reading from a medical journal recently, I quote:
I am sure my colleagues from the bush can relate to this statement. As I mentioned in my maiden speech last Tuesday, only 10 weeks ago my youngest son was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. A natural response and feeling from my wife and me was to blame ourselves and ask the question: ‘Why us?’ We live a healthy life, we have two other sons who are very active, and we have been involved in sport all our lives. These emotions and feelings, I would imagine, are similar to those of anyone else suffering from a chronic disease.
Add to this feeling of despair the feeling of homesickness, and the problem for bush people increases. For governments and health organisations, this issue not only falls back onto how the service is delivered but also requires a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to reduce the current levels of sickness. The psychological impact on the individual and the family of a chronic disease sufferer needs to also be recognised and supported, if it is not already, through hospital counsellors or liaison officers.
As an example of this, I have a very close friend and relative from Yuendumu who has had to go onto kidney dialysis in Alice Springs. Experiencing firsthand the effects it has had on him personally and his family is a big concern. Having to relocate from his home town to Alice Springs has been a big change in his and his family’s lifestyle. I am interested to find out which members of our community are more likely to suffer from a chronic disease. My initial thoughts lean towards those most disadvantaged and those on low income levels. If this is the case, we need to look carefully at how all levels of government and organisations are delivering their health systems. I would like to see education for bush people about the impact of sleeping and cooking around the open fire. It would be interesting to find out what impact there is to the respiratory condition of these people over a long period of time.
I am proud to be a member of this government, because this government is leading the nation in the fight against chronic disease. The Territory’s Building Healthier Communities framework and the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy demonstrate that this government has a plan and is serious about working towards improving the health of all Territorians. In fact, as the minister has stated, the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy was the first in Australia to include birth outcomes and infant nutrition as a preventative component of an adult chronic disease strategy. This is very important because of the Territory’s growing young indigenous population.
Another pet area of mine is men’s health. I am pleased to hear from the minister that men’s health programs will be commencing soon in the communities of Ti Tree and Nyirripi in my electorate. I am aware of the men’s forums that are currently being held through Central Australia, and I will be catching up with many of the men in the near future to find out what issues were discussed at these forums.
The strategies and programs that the minister has spoken about in this statement form a very strong platform to deal with chronic disease. This government has also delivered on improving the standard of health centres and clinics in the bush. In my electorate of Stuart, there are numerous projects that will greatly enhance communities and help organisations’ ability to improve health outcomes related to chronic disease. I would like to mention some of these projects: an upgrade to the Yuendumu Clinic; new refrigerated airconditioning systems installed at Nyirripi Clinic; extensions to the Pigeon Hole Clinic; extensions to create a health promotion and educational area at the Ti Tree Clinic; relocation of the men’s centre to the clinic to provide culturally appropriate access for men at the Yarralin community; a new clinic opened in July 2006 at Yuendumu; and a new clinic due to commence construction in April 2007 at Kalkarindji.
There are many health organisations leading the way in the Northern Territory as well. In my electorate, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, Katherine West Health Board, Urapuntja Health Services in the Utopia region, and WYN health, which takes in the communities of Willowra, Yuendumu and Nyirripi, are just a few of them that are worth mentioning. All of these health services have strong and capable indigenous members who represent the communities in their service region.
I would like to share with the House a couple of recent success stories in the Northern Territory. Many of you may have heard on ABC radio last week a story on what researchers from the University of Melbourne have discovered. The communities in the Utopia region have a mortality rate almost 40% lower than the Northern Territory’s indigenous average. The success that has been achieved through the Utopia region is no surprise to us on this side of the House, and is best summed up by local, Ricky Tilmouth. I fully support what Ricky Tilmouth said in this story, that all politicians and policymakers should stand up and take notice. The Urapuntja outstation model, one of the first areas returned to traditional owners under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, dispels the myths spread by the federal minister, Mal Brough, that outstations are unviable. In fact, the Urapuntja outstation model proves that myth wrong and demonstrates quite practically that outstations are more than viable in the context of delivering outstanding health results.
The other success story is the community of Galiwinku, in my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate. The community of Galiwinku on Elcho Island off the north coast held a festival recently. As the article in the Northern Territory News on 9 October stated: ‘The community has turned poor health outcomes around’. The community invited the Menzies School of Health Research in Darwin to Galiwinku to listen and assist the community with their concerns. The most important thing that happened after the research and screening was that the community worked together with the store and school in promoting a healthier lifestyle. Community stores are a vital part of our remote and urban communities.
In my electorate, there are also good signs of stores taking up the challenge with the rest of the community in promoting and selling healthy foods and promoting healthy lifestyles. The Ampilatwatja community store has been a trailblazer in this field, and they have previously won the Best Store Award in the Tidy Towns competition.
As I said earlier, it is a whole-of-community, whole-of-government approach in the fight against chronic disease. I would like to mention my interest in sport which also plays an important part. As we have heard from other speakers, diet and nutrition are very important factors in wiping out this disease. Obviously, the interest in my electorate is AFL football, and we must promote this with education and housing in the fight against chronic disease.
As I said last week, the biggest challenge for the Northern Territory is bringing the people of the bush with the rest of the Territory. We need to show the bush that they have to have a stake in building the society that makes up the Northern Territory. The results clearly show that when indigenous Territorians have an equal amount of control over their health, there are improved results. I believe traditional doctors, bush foods and medicines need to be kept as an equal part of our Territory health system, particularly in our remote communities.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Speaker, I look forward to further improvements in this area of reducing chronic disease amongst all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I table the Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, I am pleased to table the August 2006 Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report. Section 26 of the Audit Act requires that a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office be conducted every three years. Consistent with recently established practice, arrangements were made for the review to be conducted by a senior member of the staff of an interstate Auditor-General’s Office. This approach was supported by the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Territory Auditor-General, as it is required by the Audit Act. As a result, Mr Glen Clarke, Executive Director of the Western Australian Office of Auditor-General, was appointed to undertake the review.
I am pleased to advise the House that the review has concluded that, overall, the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an efficient and effective manner. The review has also identified opportunities for improving the office’s operations including considering how the structure and layout of reports to parliament could be revised to make them more user friendly, and seeking advice on performance management system audits and the scope that they may take.
The review has also identified that, while revenue for the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office has increased at a rate comfortably above inflation, the office costs have risen at a rate greater than this. This is primarily due to the increasing commercial rates of private sector firms contracted to conduct audits. In recognition of this, the office’s retained revenue will increase for 2006 and, further, following consultation with the Northern Territory Auditor-General, the office’s budget has been increased by a further $200 000 for this financial year 2006-07 to ensure that price increases will not jeopardise the ability of the Auditor-General to fulfil his role.
The Auditor-General has noted the recommendations of the strategic review, provided written comments on the key findings and recommendations, and has undertaken to consider them in the next round of planning. I am tabling his comments for the Assembly.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Speaker, earlier today the member for Blain asked me how many public servants there were without substantive positions in the Northern Territory Public Service - that is so-called supernumeraries - and what they cost. The Commissioner for Public Employment advises me that, as at the end of September, there were 15 874 FTEs - that is full-time employees - including Power and Water. Of these, 80% have an allocated number in the personnel information system known as PIPS, and approximately 20% do not; that is, those who are classified as supernumerary.
The Commissioner of Public Employment has advised me that the term ‘supernumerary’ has no substantive application in relation to a Northern Territory public servant’s status, job security or entitlements, and has not had since the early 1990s. Since that date, the number and level of staff has been determined not by an establishment but by an agency CEO provided it fell within the agency budget. There are many reasons for staff to be recorded as supernumerary including short-term employment, long-term leave in excess of 12 months, short-term funding from another source such as the Commonwealth government, short-term operational needs, a job number not being created in PIPS for administrative reasons, and a very small number of displaced officers.
The allocation of a job number in PIPS or otherwise has no application in relation to the public servant’s job status, security or entitlements. The Commissioner for Public Employment advises me that it is inconsequential whether a public servant has a job number in PIPS. These employees have real jobs and are delivering real services. As for cost, the allocation of job numbers in PIPS or otherwise does not give rise to any additional cost.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Speaker, tonight I contribute on two important issues within my electorate and within the community of Darwin.
One occurred on Tuesday, 17 October 2006, and it was recognition of the all-time Darwin Basketball League record for the number of games which has been broken by none other than Alex Hamriding of the Warriors Club. The Darwin Airport Resort DBL club player, Alex Hamriding of the Warriors, on Tuesday, 17 October, in the game against Razzle Storm reached basketball game played milestone for male player in the Darwin Basketball League since records have been kept. Before being in this position to achieve the record, he was equal with the retired Jeff Larson on 528 games. Jeff Larson was a local legend in basketball and a well-known local identity. Since Alex commenced his senior career in Darwin in 1987, besides his present club Warriors, his playing longevity has seen him play for Tracy Village Jets, South Darwin, Pioneer Pints, Eagles Mitsubishi now Razzle Storm, Lightning and Warriors, now the Warriors Club.
During his playing career in Darwin, he was on the winning side for two DBL championships and also played with the two Northern Territory championship winning club sides. In 1991, some 15 years ago, he won the MVP Trophy for the championship season.
In 1990, he went on tour to the United States with the Under 20 NT team. He tells some great stories from that and his opportunities to travel around America and see players in the NBA competition.
From 1993 to 1995, he left Darwin to play in Victoria with the Gippsland Lightning ABA side. This year, he showed the youngsters that he could still mix it with the best when he played for the Darwin representative team in an exhibition game against the Hoops for Health team, the team which had several players with NBL and/or ABA playing experience.
Last season, his Warriors team took out both the Challenge Season Cup and the Pepsi Max Pre-season Cup. During the present championship season, Warriors are again the team to knock off from their position on top of the table and are strong favourites to take out the Darwin Airport Resort DBL Cup.
Throughout his DBL career leading up to achieving his playing record this week, he had scored 6601 points at 12.4 points per game and has achieved a game high score of 46 points. Alex Hamriding, or Big Al as he is known, is also a phenomenal rebounding machine and consistently would have reached double figures during that period of time.
I say ‘well done’ to Alex Hamriding on his achievement and may he continue to keep building on his games played record. He was supported by his wife Simone and two boys, and his team mates Tim, Doug and Bo Wilson, Glenn Worrier, Jim Boekel, John Cuthbertson, Liam Devine, Matthew Bonson, trainer Bernie Devine, trainer JJ Michael Lew Fat and manager Robert Williams.
Alex is not only a quality basketball player, but a quality person. He has the ability to encourage his team mates, play a team game, and his record in winning games is something of which he is very proud. I wish Alex all the best and hope that he wins the season ahead.
The other matter I would like to speak about is a function I attended on Tuesday, 17 October for the launch of a book called Steve Abala Top End Sporting Role Models Northern Territory 1947 to 2006. Only someone like Ted Egan could come up with a conceptual idea like this and, with the help of none other than Aunty Sally Abala-McDowell, they came up with this great idea of recognising Steve Abala, Aunty Sally’s father, who sadly passed away in a tragic accident on the rugby field many years ago.
This book is a who’s who of Darwin sporting identities. I am proud that some of my family members are represented in it, but not only my family members, but many local family identities through many different generations are. I would like to run through some of them.
This book has recipients of the Inaugural Top End Steve Abala Role Model Awards: 1947, Gabe Hazelbane; 1948, Dot Durack; 1949, Ron Chin; 1950, Jane Garlil Christopherson; 1951, Steve Abala; 1952, Irene Kemp; 1952, Keith Kemp; 1953, Joe Sarib; 1954, Sadie McGinness-Ludwig; 1955, Ray Lee; 1956, Jocelyn Wu Sellers; 1957, Bill Roe; 1958, Irene Larkin; 1959, Frank Geddes; 1960, Cecily Muir; 1960, Harold Muir; 1961, John Bonson; 1961, Ted Cooper; 1962, Rose Damaso; 1963, Bernie Lew Fat; 1963, Terry Lew Fat; 1964, Rowena Stroud; 1965, Joe Bonson and Don Bonson as well as Vicki Bonson; 1966, Dottie Daby; 1967, David Kantilla; 1968, Audrey Kennon; 1968, Ron Smith; 1969, Michael Ah Mat; 1969, Joe Clarke – and it was great having a yarn with Joe on the day; he was very proud to be participating; 1970, Maisie Austin; 1971, Bill Dempsey; 1972, Aunty Kathy Nichols; 1973, John ‘Bubba’ Tye; 1974, Julie Brimson; 1975, Kevin Jurek; 1976, Louisa Collins; 1977, Bill Ravenswood; 1978, Bev Sinclair; 1979, Jimmy Conway; 1980, Christine Koulouriotis; 1981, Steven Bowditch; 1982, Karmie Dunn Sceney; 1983, Shane Bannan; 1984, Laurel Parker; 1985, Ralph Wiese; 1986, Coral Quinell; 1987, Graeme McGufficke; 1987, Doug Kelly; 1988, Lesley Sullivan; 1989, Clive Baxter; 1990, Vicki Lew Fat; 1991, Ken Anderson; 1992, Debbie Halprin; 1993, Michael McLean; 1994, Beth Quinlan; 1995, Michael Long; 1995, Noel Long; 1996, Nova Peris; 1997, George Voukolas; 1998, Sarah Cooper; 1999, Ken Vowles; 2000, Kerry Dienelt; 2001, Mark Hickman; 2002, Jan Palazzi; 2003, David Bates; 2004, Kelly Fong; 2005, George Owen; and 2006, Wendy Bury.
The committee was made up of very well-known local identities and comprised His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan AO, Dennis Booth, Paul Cattermole, Dottie Daby, Bob Elix, Sadie McGuinness-Ludwig and Sally Abala-McDowell. I encourage all members to purchase this fantastic book, which tells the history of sport and local identities over the last 50 years in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Top End.
It was a magnificent event to attend and, no doubt, each year it will become a highlight of the calendar. I suggest that everyone in the Chamber attend. Without any further ado, I recommend that all members have a look at this book and ensure that these heroes and role models of the past are recognised properly in the history of Darwin and the Northern Territory.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to welcome family members of the late John ‘Colie’ Coleman in the Speaker’s Gallery. I would like to acknowledge Paddy Coleman, Gary and Duffy Coleman and their sons, Justin and Mick. You are warmly welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
John was born in Mullumbimby, northern New South Wales in 1913, with his childhood years spent in and around the Tweed Valley. John left school at the tender age of 14 to become an apprentice printer. Even then, printing was in his blood. John served his apprenticeship in Queensland and was also recognised as a star Rugby League player, one of the highlights including representing Central Queensland in intrastate matches and playing first grade for South Brisbane.
John first arrived in Darwin in 1937 to work for the Northern Standard. As his son, Gary, affectionately recalls: ‘There was a printers strike at the Courier Mail and Dad was always a bit of a left winger. The management in Brisbane thought it was best to transfer him to Darwin. He became more of a moderate in the 1960s but there was always something of a leftie in him’.
While John was working for the Northern Standard during World War II, he had a close call. The story goes that a hangover saved his life. John had an appointment with the Postmaster-General at 10 am but, due to the hangover, he was running late. As John walked out of the Northern Standard building with proofs under his arm, the bombs – it was 19 February 1942 – started to rain down on the city. John had a lucky escape but, regrettably, all those in the Darwin Post Office on that fateful day were killed. John was evacuated to Brisbane, joined the Navy, and spent time serving in both the Pacific and New Guinea.
It was during this time that John met and married Dorothy. John returned to Darwin after the war and the hunt was on for suitable accommodation so that Dorothy and their two young daughters, Jacqlynne and Jill, could join them from Brisbane. Houses were in short supply after the war and John had heard, via health authorities, that a house in Cavenagh Street could be available. The only problem was that a number of people were squatting illegally. John and a couple of mates tackled the squatters and the family home was found - 88 Cavenagh Street - where the family was completed with the addition of Paddy and Gary.
John started his printing company of J R Coleman in 1948. In 1952, the name was changed to the Northern Territory News Services Limited and, along with business partners, John has the distinction of publishing the first edition of the Northern Territory News on Friday, 8 February 1952, an original copy of which is treasured by the family to this day. After the Northern Territory News was firmly established and successful, John left the newspaper industry and, with Dorothy, purchased an ice-cream shop in Mitchell Street West. The shop was known as Colemans Cash Store, with the catchy slogan, ‘If you can eat it or drink it, Colemans have it’.
However, printing was still John’s lifeblood and, after three years in the shop, he entrusted the shop to his wife and restarted his printing company, J R Coleman. It is a tribute to both John and Dorothy that both businesses ran for over 20 years, with J R Coleman being the forerunner for Colemans Printing.
John was also an excellent host, and invited friends and business people back to their home. On one particular occasion, John offered the guest a lift home. The guest said, ‘I don’t think so, John. I live in Melbourne’, to which John packed a pair of socks, underpants and a bottle of Scotch and they both set off to Melbourne.
During the 1950s and 1960s and early 1970s, John was either a founding or an active member of various organisations including the Darwin Club, the Darwin Turf Club, Darwin Golf Club, Darwin Bowls Club, Darwin Rotary Club, Darwin Trailer Boat Club and Waratahs Club. Darwin’s first post-war council was elected in 1957 and John stood for the position of mayor, losing by a very narrow margin to the first mayor of Darwin, local builder, Bill Richardson.
John’s legacy lives on to this day, with Colemans Printing operating from modern premises next door to where the family home was, and under the guardianship of his grandsons, Tony, Justin and Michael.
It is visionaries and characters such as John Coleman, who had the belief and confidence in the Territory’s future, who continue to inspire us all. To his family members here tonight, our sincere condolences. John lived a long, productive life here in the Territory. The Colemans are a great Territory family and will continue to contribute to community and business life in the Territory. It is lovely to have an opportunity to remember John ‘Colie’ Coleman.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Johnson): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to talk about the dedication of the National Police Memorial in Canberra last month. I had the honour of attending the dedication. The National Police Memorial is a permanent tribute to those Australian police officers who have lost their lives as a result of their duties. The memorial was unveiled by Prime Minister John Howard at an evening ceremony on 29 September, Police Remembrance Day.
There are nine Territory policemen commemorated on the memorial. They are: Mounted Constable John Shirley, who died in 1883 while Officer-in-Charge of the police station at Barrow Creek. Mounted Constable Shirley died of thirst while tracking down a group of murderers. Because the Territory was administered by South Australia at the time, Mounted Constable Shirley is listed on the memorial as a South Australian police officer.
The other eight policemen listed as Territorians are: Mounted Constable Albert McColl, who was speared to death on Woodah Island in 1933; Constable Max Gilbert, who died in a motor accident in 1948 while escorting a prisoner to Alice Springs; Constable William Condon, who was killed by a gunman in Katherine in 1952; Inspector Lou Hook, who died in a motor accident near Pine Creek in 1967; Sergeant Colin Eckert, who died in 1970 in a head-on collision near Katherine while returning from prisoner escort duty; Senior Constable Allen Price, who died of a heart attack while trying to quell a disturbance in Mataranka in 1981; Detective Sergeant Ian Bradford, who died in 1984 when a police vehicle in which he was passenger was driven over the edge of Fort Hill wharf in Darwin; and Brevet Sergeant Glen Huitson, who was killed by a gunman on the Stuart Highway in 1999.
The human tragedy that lies behind these names and dates was driven home during the dedication ceremony when Glen Huitson’s children, 10-year-old Joseph and eight-year-old Ruby, lit a candle of remembrance on behalf of all those Territory families who have lost a loved one in the line of duty.
It was my privilege while in Canberra to meet members of the families of some of these fallen Territory police officers. The familles were flown to Canberra by NT Police Legacy, which provides assistance to surviving spouses and dependent children of deceased police officers. I acknowledge all those on the Police Legacy Board of Management, in particular Superintendent Anne-Marie Murphy, who did so much to ensure that the families were looked after during their time in Canberra. The Police Association deserves recognition as a driving force behind the memorial, as well as a significant financial contributor towards its $2.4m cost. The Retired Police Association has also been a supporter throughout.
The NT Police sent a delegation of 39 personnel to Canberra headed by Commissioner Paul White. They stood out in their khaki uniforms and were afforded the great honour of having Sergeant Garry Casey selected to command the catafalque party. The ceremony also saw the new Northern Territory Police flag raised for the first time. It is a stunning flag, with the police emblem superimposed on the ochre and black Territory flag. It was designed by Superintendent David Pryce and made by Ron Strachan.
There are many people who deserve thanks for their efforts, but it would be particularly remiss not to acknowledge Deputy Commission Bruce Wernham for his work on the steering committee which guided the development of the memorial. The memorial is in Kings Park on the north side of Lake Burley Griffin. The focal point is the memorial wall containing 1200 bronze plaques; with 721 plaques inscribed with the name of a police officer who has died in the line of duty. The remaining 479 plaques are blank, a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by police officers on a daily basis.
Tonight, I place on the record my appreciation for the contribution to sport, thoroughbred and greyhound racing, in particular, of Dennis Booth.
Dennis was a long-time Northern Territory News journalist who retired last week. Dennis was a former sports editor of the Northern Territory News. He had a number of stints at the Northern Territory News, the first of them under legendary editor, Jim Bowditch. Dennis went on to carve out a formidable reputation in the Darwin community in his days with the news. Although he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the racing game, Dennis reported on just about every sport in Darwin. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s there were times when he virtually wrote the sport section of the NT News single-handedly. As a result, he was probably one of the best known figures in town. While he was known variously as Doggie, and Bunnie Booth, largely as a result of his association with greyhound racing, most people simply called him Boothie.
As Racing minister, I thank Dennis for his contribution to the local racing industry which he clearly loved so much. I wish him well in his retirement. It is noteworthy that I think everyone in this House has noticed all the effusive farewells for Dennis Booth, all the functions, all the talk, all the stories in the paper about his wonderful career and his wonderful contribution to sport over a long time.
I am sure everyone in this House joins with me in wishing Boothie all the best for the future. To be honest, I do not think he will be able to do without the Territory for a sustained time. I would not be surprised to see him back for a few stints, and we would love to see you back here, Dennis. So, all the best in your retirement and thanks once again for all the great articles, all the great humour and all the great tips.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the comments made by the member for Johnston. A fine fellow, and I agree that I reckon we will see Dennis Booth back. I have seen him depart before and return. It is just tremendous and a great credit to a man that has that kind of response on a sustained level through the local media. Good on you, Dennis.
I would like to continue comments that have been made over a recent period of time related to nutrition and school programs. It is an ongoing issue within this nation and it is a fairly challenging one because it speaks to levels of affluence and how we manage that affluence. The consequences of that affluence are seen in a negative way in the health of our young people and it is going right through our population.
The report that was presented today, a very well-presented and a timely report, shows us quite clearly we have issues of an economic nature that will impact upon us now and, unless addressed in a quantum, it will be very difficult for us to accommodate in years to come. If you see something emerging within the community, the information coming through today informs a view that it is a serious situation. If you see something like this occurring around us, and there have been commentators for a sustained period of time, then we are obligated to find ways of responding to that.
Having worked in schools for about 17 years, I know that the role of the school is critical in assisting in the reinforcing of solid principles and backing up families. The school is, in fact, an extension of the home and the values should be reflected and reinforced in the school environment to support the family. The school should not work separate from the family. Always in my time in education I was of the view - and reinforcing that idea - that when a parent drops their child off at the school they are just passing their child over to the school to assist in the role of parenting and so that which occurs in the school plays a very important role.
It has been recognised for some time that the strategic role of the school community is reinforcing central messages. It is no coincidence that this is also being reflected in statements by different agencies within the Northern Territory. In December 2004, there was a document produced called Building Healthier Communities. It featured the member for Arafura and the then member for Stuart as the joint ministers. This document reflected on the importance of nutrition within schools, and it talked about the important breakfast programs. Many local members would know that breakfast programs do run in a number of our schools and play an important and strategic role.
In this case, there has been some $300 000 reported in the 2004 update of Building Healthier Communities to support nutrition programs within schools. It goes down to ensuring that the intake of sugar is reduced, that water is recognised and reinforced as an important drink rather than sweetened and carbonated drinks, and that diets reflected through the breakfast programs are rotated. The focus was Healthy Minds, Healthy Bodies and Healthy Actions, and it showed that the school plays a critical role. Interestingly, it states on the opening page that the kids are healthier as a result and, importantly, they are taking messages about good nutrition home to their families. That reinforces the importance of the school strategically to help reinforce the efforts that families make in good nutrition.
As we go to page 2, it says as schools run these breakfast programs, they are to submit their menus so that they meet dietary guidelines, and nutritionists visit at least once a term to discuss nutritional issues. It is important to see that reinforcing going into the school environment to flow back and reinforce into the home so there can be sustained improvements in nutrition. It says here, too, that the program includes close collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and has also led to increased community involvement. I am a community member. I am involved in the breakfast program in Moulden, and I know that other community groups come in to support sound nutrition messages in the school.
The statement presented today reinforces the message that the disease burden is significant in the Territory: 22% for the non-Aboriginal community and a terrible 31% for the Aboriginal community. Key amongst the chronic disease is diabetes. As we look into the Access Economics report, there are two types of diabetes, Type 1 and 2, and they are on the rise - directly linked to the rise in obesity and the lowering of fitness levels in our young people.
Having been involved in education for 17 years, it is with some sadness that I report that I have seen in recent times the number of young people – and we have had this mentioned in the Chamber today - who are falling to diabetes at increasingly young ages. There was a time, and I am sure most members would reflect, that it was rare to hear of young people succumbing to diabetes. There are a number of them I could list who have now succumbed to diabetes, all linked to nutrition, high levels of sugar in their diet and irregular exercise – preventable. The ongoing costs are enormous, direct and indirect. There is one particular young lady I know who is 18 years of age and works in Palmerston. I used to teach her. She has had Type 1 Diabetes and regular injections since she was 15. She has had some difficulties. Her dad passed away, and she has forgotten, on occasion, to monitor her levels and has been taken quite seriously ill, to the point where we were concerned that she might not survive. She has levelled out and managed to manage her condition.
Another insight in recent times is the Men Making a Difference program at Gray Primary School. I took a group of young lads away and spent a bit of time with them through the course of the term, and I noticed their huge appetite for caffeinated drinks and processed foods. They were not particularly interested in cane toad busting late into the night, because they got a bit tired and wanted to go home and have a bit more caffeine and a bit of sugar - and I am not joking. It does not take much of an imagination to think what could possibly be confronting these young lads as they develop. That is why it is important to intervene, and to take an active role in the school, reinforced by the messages we have already heard.
I am disappointed to hear the minister for Education say there is no clear evidence - or words to that effect - in answer to a question today. The evidence is quite clear. In fact, it is clearly presented in this Chamber today that the levels of chronic disease are high and there needs to be strategic action. The standards to be presented to a school community is not a job for the school community to do, but the school community is a place where you can reach the family, you can reach into the classroom and, as has happened in other states where different models and different codes have been applied, the most important thing is that it has a deep reach. It can only be coordinated by the will of government. That is the leadership that is required. Any commentator on this will tell you that there are reasonable models, there are okay models, and there are very good models, and there are different ways of approaching this educational message.
One good example is New South Wales, where it is not just a matter of passing a law that makes it a requirement that certain standards of goods are served at a canteen and then we all walk away from that. It is much deeper than that and it shows the need for proper resourcing and a strong facilitation role on behalf of government. A standard needs to be set that is easily understood and reinforced - a message that is simple, runs into the home and is easily transferable to the classroom. There needs to be coordination between health and education so that the messages that are run in the canteen run deep into the classroom as well – a coordinated message reflected in the curriculum – so that the message of the classroom matches that which is being presented in the school canteen, that the messages that are being run in the classroom and through the curriculum, in the canteen, are also being run into the family. Those approaches have been shown to produce results, and that is the call that is being made from opposition to government.
In all sincerity, if you choose to take up a model - you do not have to take up the exact model that has been described by the Territory opposition – I can understand that. You can put that aside if you wish, but the underlying principles remain consistent, whether it is in any state in Australia, or different schools which have tried different approaches, in the United Kingdom, in the United States of America, in Canada, or in Europe. Different systems are coming up with ways of ensuring that they can start to turn this problem around.
I am not going to stake everything on the particular model that the CLP has put up. I believe it is quite a good model. If I was running a school at this time, I would run a model like that, but I can tell you that, from the point of view of a school canteen, they need back up, and they need the back up so that it runs in the curriculum as well. If we require a school canteen to run high quality tucker, and we all stand back and think we have achieved something, it will not succeed, because the canteen itself, in isolation, if we require that of a school canteen, it will become in many cases unviable because canteen is seen as a place where you can get a bit of a treat. Sadly, that is abused in our number of our schools. The canteen needs to be reinforced and backed up by a coordinated approach that reaches into the curriculum, into every classroom, and into the family through community advertising consistent messages.
Government is the only agency that can coordinate that between education and health. I urge the minister to take the lead, to step into this place. You will have support. I know that there are school communities out there that need the back-up. There are some wonderful school communities which have gone down this path, and they are fighting a tough battle. Some are having great success because they have a very coordinated and cohesive school community. Others are trying, and they do not have that same level of coordination; it is very difficult for them. One I know is Durack, where they have some difficulties in sustaining the standard in the school canteen. Woodroffe does a fantastic job. They have managed to get a consistent approach and they have stuck to it. It is working well. There are other schools I would not mention here which find it is almost too difficult.
That is why, in New South Wales, for example, it has worked well because of that strongly coordinated facilitated role with the resource of government to ensure that we run that deep and consistent message all the way through.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge the minister to reconsider. You will have the support of Territory opposition, and Territory families and canteen managers on this.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about a few visits that I have made in my electorate over the last couple of months. Unfortunately, I have not had the time that I would have liked in my electorate due to my appointment as a minister, but I have had the chance to visit quite a few school functions. That is something that I do enjoy as part of my role as the member for Drysdale.
On 21 September, the Driver Primary School had their International Food Night which was an outstanding success. It has been running for a number of years now, and is well supported by parents, friends and grandparents. Congratulations must go to the teachers, parents and students for putting on a wonderful night. I must single a couple people out: Wally Mauger and his wife, Fathma, have done a wonderful job; Wally is the chairman and Fatima is Assistant Principal at the school. They did a wonderful job that night organising the events. Wally was running around with a microphone letting everyone know where the food was being sold and what varieties of food were available, and also organising the acts on stage.
I contributed on the night. I helped the Grade 7s cook their satays, and we did not do too badly. We sold quite a few satays and the class made a few dollars on the side out of the event. It was great to see. One of the highlights of the night was the children’s international fancy dress. I was lucky enough to judge that with one of the teachers, Mr Mark Monaghan. It was fantastic to see. There were around 30 children involved dressed up in all sorts of costumes: Mexicans, Uncle Sam was there from the United States, and Asia was well represented, especially China and Japan. They had one young gentleman there who was a Maori. His parents actually tattooed his face with paint, and it was very effective. He was one of the prize winners on the night. The Pacific Islands were well represented; there were a number of grass skirts. Of course, the Aussies were there. One of the funniest entrants, who also won a prize, was a young lad dressed up as a mummy. He was covered from head to foot with bandages and with just his eyes, mouth and nose showing. It was quite effective.
The night was packed with dancing and singing from the various class groups, and even the adult belly dancers engaged in the evening. His Honour, the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan, visited the evening. As I said earlier, congratulations must go to all those who were involved; it was a terrific night.
I thank all the sponsors who put their hands in their pockets to help out on the night. It was a fantastic effort. I understand the school raised a comfortable amount of money to help them in their efforts with the children throughout the remainder of this term and into next year.
There are a couple of achievements to recognise in the school. Young Erin Schipp won two gold medals at the Northern Territory Athletics Championships in early September this year. She won gold medals in the shot put and discus. The school also participated in the 2006 PARCS Inter-School Mathematics Competition and I understand the kids had a lot of fun and conducted themselves very well. Breeanna Gottschling’s group won first prize in the Year 2 and 3 category and Allen Huang’s group ran second in the Year 7 category. Congratulations to all of those kids involved.
One of my other schools that we are very proud of is Gray Primary School. I attended a Father’s Day breakfast on the Monday after the Father’s Day in early September and it was great to see the support from fathers at the function. It was held in the undercover basketball court area where eggs and bacon were cooked. The children had shown up with their fathers and it was great to see, while I was cooking the toast, fathers and children lined up down the side of the basketball court ready to get their feed. It was very well supported. It was great to see the dads taking time off work and it was a pleasure cooking up the toast and mixing and meeting with the fathers who were there.
I had a conversation with a few of the fathers that night. They really love being involved with the school and they wish they could do it a little more often. Obviously, their work commitments hold them back from that. I know the member for Brennan and I - I think the member for Brennan was cooking eggs and bacon while I was cooking the toast - both enjoyed the morning, meeting the fathers and having that commitment to the children at the school was fantastic. I know many of the children took their fathers into their classrooms to show them what they are doing in the classrooms because the fathers do not get that opportunity as much as they would like. In talking to a number of the fathers, they felt that their children are really achieving at the school.
The performance night a couple of weeks ago at Gray Primary School was a great night. There was a huge turnout of parents, grandparents and friends who saw the school children perform and it was enjoyed by all. Unfortunately, I did not get to see too many of the acts. I was cooking the barbecue with Mr Kokkinomagoulos while the member for Brennan sold steak sandwiches and sausage sandwiches. I had a quiet drink with the staff afterwards and it was terrific to see the staff getting the member for Brennan and I involved.
The school group is under wonderful guidance, the teaching group is terrific and Mrs Cindy McGarry, Mrs Sue Beynon and Mr Eric Smith are to be congratulated for the wonderful work they are doing with the staff and with the children. They are progressing well to the point where I would like to add that it was terrific to receive in the post last week that the Gray Primary School has been recognised as one of six Northern Territory schools and one of 100 schools in Australia to participate in the Kids Matter Program. The Kids Matter Program is run by the Australian Primary Schools Mental Health Initiative. The Kids Matter initiative has three major aims: to improve the mental health and wellbeing of primary school students; to reduce mental health problems amongst students with examples of anxiety, depression and behavioural problems; and to achieve greater support from those students at risk of, or experiencing, mental health problems.
With Kids Matter, schools develop and implement a comprehensive plan that addresses the specific mental needs for their students. These plans focus on four key areas: social and emotional skills of students; education and support for parents; early intervention for students at risk with their families; and a positive school community.
It was great to see the school recognised for their efforts and it was one of 100 primary schools throughout Australia. This trial will be comprehensively evaluated with parents, school and staff and students who will be asked to provide their views as to the success of the Kids Matter initiative which will be run over the two-year period. Congratulations to the school. They are doing some wonderful work and wish them every success in the future with that program.
In Question Time yesterday, the Minister for Sport and Recreation mentioned that the Palmerston Magpies, whose home ground is the University oval at the CDU at Palmerston, play their first home game on the ground this week on Sunday. They are playing Southern Districts at 4 o’clock. I congratulate the Palmerston Magpies Club. I have been involved, as everyone knows, with AFL for a number of years and have had quite a bit to do with the Palmerston Magpies. I know the previous committee did an enormous amount of work to secure a home ground and home games at Palmerston. They are to be congratulated. I know the new committee is working extremely hard to ensure that the success is achieved at this ground. Full credit goes to Gus Gale, the president, and his committee for the groundwork they have put in to get this game up this weekend. I envisage there is going to be a fantastic crowd at a big event. I will certainly be there cheering the old black and whites along. I look forward to seeing everyone there.
I understand that the new oval and complex is near completion. The scoreboard goes up this week. I was there on Monday night and the ground looks in really good nick. I know the boys have been training on it. I am sure they are looking forward to playing their first game this week. The building has two large change rooms, an umpires’ room and several toilets, an office and a kiosk. I understand that the clubrooms are getting full use from all the grades that are involved at the club.
I congratulate coaches on their appointment this year. The A Grade coach is Darren Flanagan and he will be assisted by Steve Smith, Dave Barnard and Jason Cockatoo. The B Grade coach is Robbie Corrie. The Under 18s’ coach is Jason Cockatoo. The Under 16s’ coach is Ralph McCoy. The Under 15s’ is Allan Walsh, Under 14s’ Wayne Norman and Under 13s’, Eddie Osgood. It is great to see these people involved with the community and helping the junior footballers.
It was terrific also to see that Aaron Davey was back at the club. Aaron is a former player of the Palmerston Magpies and came up through the junior grades with his brothers. He is back in town at the moment after his commitments with AFL football this year with the Melbourne Football Club. He is getting involved, having a bit of a run with the juniors, and I understand he is even sponsoring one of the junior teams as well. It is terrific to see Aaron supporting the club and giving a little back to the club that has helped him along the way to achieving his AFL dreams.
Aaron is not the only AFL footballer who has come from Palmerston. It would be remiss of me not to mention Trent Hentschel who is playing for the Adelaide Crows at the moment, and Matthew Stokes who is playing with Geelong. These three are about the same age group. They have all come through the junior grades together and have been outstanding players in the Northern Territory, representing the Thunder Squads on their way through, and have gone on to bigger and better things in the AFL. It is great to see them doing wonderful things in the top competition of Australia.
I also acknowledge the sponsors. I understand Adam of Speedy Electrics has made a wonderful contribution to the club in rewiring some of the clubrooms and setting that all up ready for the big game this week. Southern Cross Television is going to be the major sponsor of the Magpies this year. They have come on board together with Top End Hire, Combined Communications, Breezeway Louvres, Territory Marine, Exposure Productions, and Darwin Party Hire. I am sure the club would like to thank all of their sponsors. Similarly, I am sure if anyone else would like to get involved, the club would love to have them.
I know we did not do all that well last week, the first game of the season, but promising things are ahead. I wish them all the best for their first game at the university oval this week.
One last thing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the Cazalys Club at Palmerston. Mr Noel Fahey, with whom I had a number of enjoyable dealings at the Casuarina Club when he was General Manager, has just taken on the General Manager’s role at the Cazalys Palmerston Club. I wish him all the very best in his new role. He is a wonderful operator. He did some wonderful things at the Casuarina Club, and I am sure he will take the club on to bigger and better things, and it is terrific to see the club still supporting affiliated sports clubs in the area.
A couple of weeks ago, they contributed $80 000 for the year towards sporting clubs. It is terrific to see a club of this stature giving money back to sport organisations. We all know how hard it is for amateur clubs to raise money, to chase sponsors, and do all those sort of things. To have a club of this stature giving money back out of profits from gambling and poker machines is fantastic. They have been doing this for a number of years. The contributions have increased significantly since the club first opened in 1999. Seven years ago, Cazalys contributed $15 000 to local clubs and that has now grown to $80 000 so it is fantastic support. It is one of the most generous clubs across the Top End. They regularly donate to local charities and organisations as well. Congratulations to the club, and to Noel. I am looking forward to catching up with him soon. Well done to Cazalys and the board of Cazalys. I have been involved with them through the AFL as well, and they have always been great supporters of sports and I wish them all the best in the future.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Drysdale. May I add: go the Crocs on Saturday.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was invited to attend the Chung Wah Society’s groundbreaking ceremony at the Chung Wah Hall in Wood Street. It was an auspicious day as, selected by the community’s elders after consulting the almanac, it was the day when they decided to commence the construction of the extension of its hall.
I would like to like to give some history of the Chung Wah Society and what it means to the Chinese community in Darwin. It has been there for several generations now, and each generation adds a little more to the Chung Wah grounds, with the start of the temple which was blown down during Cyclone Tracy and then reconstructed. The current hall has already had one extension, and the whole place has been repainted recently. Now they are embarking on the extension of the hall, and also more than doubling the size of the museum. The total funding for this project has been split essentially into three areas: the federal government, through the Department of Transport and Regional Services, DOTARS, provided $330 000; the Northern Territory government provided $245 000; and the Chung Wah Society fundraised with tireless effort over the last four years and have put together $230 000 for the project. They still have another $120 000 held over for the trimmings of the Chinese museum.
The project started some four years ago when the Chung Wah Society committee decided that the Chinese museum was fairly tight in space; it is not conducive to good visitations to the museum to see, value and understand the history that has been kept there. As we heard from previous discussions, we have had the Sweet and Sour display held at the Museum and Art Gallery at Bullocky Point. The collection that formed the Sweet and Sour display is now kept at the Chinese museum. Unfortunately, they did not have enough space for the display to be spread out properly for good viewing so, once the construction of the museum is completed and it has more space, the Sweet and Sour display will be redisplayed in its absolute splendour.
When the project was undertaken four years ago, the committee of the Chung Wah Society undertook to do this, and they also had a subcommittee consisting of five personalities, whom I will name shortly, who undertook the actual project. Design of the extension was by Jeremy Chin; the structural design was contributed to by Stephen Au; mechanical engineering like the airconditioning was provided by David Chin; electrical engineering details were provided by Jacob Li; all coordinated by Daryl Chin, a senior member of the Chung Wah Society.
Four years ago, when the project was initially thought of and quantity surveys estimated the cost of the construction, it was estimated to cost $450 000 to $480 000. Unfortunately, over the last four years, building, material, and labour costs have all gone through the roof, and it is now expected to cost something like $703 000-plus. That is why they sought funding from the federal government and the Northern Territory government.
When Adam Lowe, the President of the Chung Wah Society, first thought how he could apply for the funds and what applications he had to write to seek the funding, he spoke to David Tollner, the member for Solomon, who gave him a lot of assistance. Adam Lowe spoke in glowing terms about the member for Solomon and the work that he did to assist the Chung Wah Society in putting in an application which was successful. The application was made to Sharon Woon, the local Director of DOTARS, and also had the support of Col Fuller, the Chairman of the Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee. With the support of Col Fuller through the NTACC, the DOTARS application was successful and the money came forward. The Northern Territory government provided funding as well and, over the last four years, maximum effort was put in by the Chung Wah Society to fundraise.
You all would have attended the Chung Wah Dragon Ball each year during the Dry Season. This function was, essentially, organised by the Griffiths family, particularly Tina Griffiths, but with strong support and sponsorship from her father, Dick Griffiths, in association with Sony. The sponsorship by Sony, through Dick Griffiths, made it possible. Those of you who have attended the Sony Dragon Ball would have enjoyed the sumptuous occasion which some 500 people or even more - the first two were very well attended; I think they went well above 500 people attending - donated generously, and generously bid for auction items. That was how the Chung Wah Society was able to raise the funds. Obviously, the Lion Dance Troupe also performed some general blessings not associated with the Chinese Temple, and also helped raise money. Each year, the Sony Dragon Ball raffle raises significant additional funds to add to the Chung Wah Society’s collection.
The project will expand the existing Chinese museum to house exhibits which, unfortunately, are currently in storage. By extension, it will increase the capacity of the Chinese museum to more than double its size. Where the current office is will become the entrance to the Chinese museum. The hall will also be increased in size and, altogether, the hall will have 250 m of ground floor space and an extra 100 m of mezzanine floor space. That will increase the seating capacity to about 250 guests in airconditioned comfort. That is quite significant for this humid weather in Darwin.
The ceremony was attended by the members for Casuarina and Karama and myself, and Adam Lowe, the president, performed the official duties while Daryl Chin described the history of the project. Those attending the occasion were the Chinese leaders from all the different organisations in Darwin: the Hakka Association, the Chinese Timorese Association, the Hong Kong Association - I am going to definitely miss some names - the China Australia Society, and the China Australia Friendship Association were also represented as were many other leading lights in the Chinese community. Dick Griffiths was there with his family, Col Fuller in his role as Chair of the NTACC, Sharon Woon was there, and representing the builder was Jason Horder of Horder Constructions who will be undertaking the construction of this project for the next six months.
The gathering demonstrated the community support for the Chung Wah project. It is a project that the Chinese community in the Darwin has shown ownership of and have contributed to in effort, in-kind and in money to ensure that the project is successful - and successful it will, be without a doubt. The architectural, electrical, structural and mechanical designs were all contributed by the names I mentioned earlier. The subcommittee which will be oversighting this project will be Roland Chin, Andrew Chin, Jeremy Chin, Daryl Chin and Adam Lowe, and they will be supervising the construction as it proceeds.
I am sure the Chinese community in Darwin, and especially the Chung Wah members, will be eagerly looking forward to the completion of this building. The building will extend all the way from the current wall up to the very edge of the fence line and will fill the whole site of the Chung Wah block. The remaining space will be the tennis court which is still there and the little shed adjacent to it and then the grand courtyard. People will remember that, five years ago during the centenary celebrations, the Chinese gate and the wall were constructed. That now provides a very nice enclosed area that forms a courtyard which I am sure would be the location for many outdoor functions for the Chung Wah Society.
As with each generation, a little is added to the Chung Wah Society grounds to show that they have been there, they have left something behind, and it has made the place a little better than when they found it. It is a good philosophy to have when you are contributing something in the name of your generation.
The way the Chung Wah Society has led the Chinese community in Darwin these many decades has been a real example for many other ethnic organisations to follow. They have remained very strong and united in their purpose. They have retained the Chinese culture within the Australian context very well. They have integrated into the mainstream community, yet retaining their culture and the language - or languages, should I say, because they speak Cantonese, Mandarin, Hakka - all intermingled in a single organisation that has the ethnic Chinese culture and interests at heart.
I wish the Chung Wah Society well. I hope they will continue with great projects that they can locate at their current site. I encourage this government to continue to support the Chung Wah Society in its endeavours. It is a good and responsible organisation in this city. I hope they continue to spread their influence across the Territory right down to Alice Springs, which they have already done in bringing the Chinese New Year Lion Dance into Alice Springs every year, as they have done for the last nine years. I look forward to more of that in the future.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my colleague, the member for Greatorex, about the great work that the Chung Wah Society does as the fantastic representative body of the Chinese community in the Territory.
There are a lot of events for me to get through, so I will do my best.
I have spoken about the wonderful Friday night Palmerston markets many times in the Assembly. There are only a few weeks left to run this year and I encourage everyone to get to the markets before they finish. Julia and her committee do a fantastic job each week organising all stallholders. I want to specifically mention the commitment of the Palmerston markets to ensuring community groups are able to set up amongst the commercial ventures. The sunset spectacular of birds alighting in the trees is loved by many. There is usually a 15- to 20-minute cacophony of bird calls that seems to drown out any other noise, as well as visual delight of great flocks of birds swooping through the sky - absolutely brilliant.
I confess that I am delightfully surprised by the number of interstate visitors who now visit the markets. This obviously has spin-offs for the shops that surround the markets. I am looking forward to the opening of the new coffee shop that is part of the library building. It is a good position for such a venture. What could be better than stopping for a coffee and starting one of the books you have just borrowed from the Palmerston Community Library? Additionally, the coffee shop will become a convenient venue for a break for Palmerston students using the library resources for research and study.
I have said before that the library is a fantastic public asset for the Palmerston and surrounding communities. The library community rooms are already used by many groups and it has become the community hub that I believed was always envisioned. Through the cooperative arrangement between the Northern Territory government and the Palmerston City Council, the library is always where Palmerston residents can find a great deal of Northern Territory government information. Of course, people can always get assistance from my office if they are looking for information about government.
I mentioned before students studying in the library. Year 12 end-of-year exams will have started by the time the Assembly next sits after these sittings. I wish all students the very best in their endeavours. I can remember my final year of high school and the mixed feelings of not looking forward to the ordeal, but wanting them over as quickly as possible. In my view, Year 12 is the most intense and sustained period of study a young person can go through. University and tech courses or on-the-job training have their own particular pressures. Certainly, many post-high school study programs will involve some form of examination. However, I do not think that they compare to the continued pressure that is involved with completing Year 12. So, good luck to everyone. The phrase carpe diem is good advice from Horace: seize the day. However, I prefer the more contemporary quote from the late Kerry Packer: life is not a dress rehearsal.
There has been a lot of talk in the media this week about an amnesty for paedophiles. I oppose those views, as does the government. I am sure that the people of Palmerston would join me in not supporting this suggestion.
This weekend, Palmerston Magpies, as my colleague, the member for Drysdale, said play their first home game at their new ground. Congratulations to Gus Gale and his committee for the hard work they have put in. Good luck to the team and may the ground become a fortress to which other teams fear to travel.
I would like to recognise Cazalys for their promotion of the game to their members in their literature and in their events. I was at the half-yearly disbursement ceremony on 21 September, where Cazalys presented sums of money to the affiliated clubs. General Manager, Noel Fahey, paid tribute to the staff and club members when he said - and I quote from the club website at www.cazalysnt.org.au/membership/ newsletter.htm:
Continuing quoting from that web page:
I saw how well the Raiders Under 14s and Under 16s teams played in their finals. The lads did extremely well and did themselves proud, even though they did not ultimately win. For my opinion and what it is worth, the Under 14s’ result did not really reflect the level of commitment that the team put in and they way they played for each other. I congratulate the committee at the Raiders organisation, and the many parents who give up their time in a variety of ways to be involved in the running of the club at junior and senior level. The Under 16s came oh so close to victory. As those of us who have played sport know, the game - whatever the game is - can be cruel sometimes. I thank the committee for getting me involved in the club and inviting me to their events. I happily provide what support I can and look forward to the start of next season already.
Dottie Daby was recently featured in the Northern Territory News. I think it was the ‘Our History’ lift-out which contained a photo of the 1966 Whippets basketball team. There is no mistaking Dottie. She does not seem to have aged at all; hard to believe it is 40 years ago. Well done, Dottie. I can inform the House that Dottie is just as active now as she was then. She may have hung up the basketball uniform, but her community activities keep her moving as fast as lightning. To say she is an asset to her community does not do her justice. She is involved in many things.
On 16 September, I was pleased to attend the 30th birthday of Mr Brad Tonna at the Cyprus Club. The event was also a celebration of the christening of Brad and Janice’s daughter. I first met Janice’s mother, Odette Simoes, through my employment at the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. Odette is a wonderful, generous community-minded lady. Odette was the face of the Northern Territory in the national Clean Start industrial campaign by the LHMU, a campaign to raise community awareness of the lowest paid job classifications. Odette and her friends and family catered for the many guests entirely on their own. Odette’s sons did duty behind the bar, and her daughters did stints singing with the band that was playing. Kids were well catered for, including a jumping castle in the grounds of the Cyprus Club. It was a brilliant evening. I am amazed at Odette and her family’s organisation of these family events, and I have been to a couple now.
On 18 September, I attended the opening of the Coolalinga and District Community Bank’s official opening. The bank is part of the Bendigo Community Bank network. I know that this is an issue dear to the member for Goyder’s heart. The opening was very well attended. The fact it is open at all bears testimony to the hard graft of local people convincing the bank that it would have enough support from the local community. This involved significant fundraising on the part of a dedicated team of organisers. It is a prime example of people power. I can inform the Assembly that the role of my colleague, the member for Goyder, was recognised by the committee spokesperson on the day as integral to getting the branch open at Coolalinga. Well done, member for Goyder.
Sharon and I attended the decommissioning of the HMAS Launceston on 8 September. It is the first decommissioning we have attended. The ceremony proceeded with typical military fashion. HMAS Launceston was commissioned on 1 March 1982. She was initially based in Sydney before relocating to Darwin in February 1986. One of 15 Fremantle Class patrol boats built for the Royal Australian Navy, Launceston has spent the majority of her life contributing to the surveillance of Australia’s northern approaches, conducting fisheries and immigration law enforcement operation in support of Australia’s strategic interests. Launceston was one of three Fremantle Class patrol boats used in the filming of the ABC television series, Patrol Boat, all of which used the Launceston’s pennant number, 207.
I attended a meeting of the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans Association. I thank Tom Davern for the invitation. As members may be aware, the association members are veterans who took part in different conflicts from World War II onwards. I thank the members for their hospitality. I indicated my support for their group and am working with their committee to progress some matters in which they have an interest and were raised with me at the meeting. These people put their lives at risk on their country’s behalf, and I feel it a small return on my behalf to try to assist where I can.
There were a couple of people I know quite well who are part of the group. Mr Curly Nixon is a well-known long-term Top End resident. He is a living compendium of local history. I often think that Curly should walk around with a tape recorder, iPod, or something like that with him, recording the stories with which he can both entertain and educate.
Another of the members of the association is Mr Dave Collins. I first met Dave through my involvement in the Darwin Youth Sister Cities Organisation and the Haikou Sister City Committee of the Darwin City Council. I knew that Dave had served with the Defence Forces and flew in helicopters. What I did not know until I attended the meeting of the association is that Dave was part of one of the helicopter crews involved in the battle of Long Tan. Dave gave a report at the meeting of the reunion that was held in Canberra commemorating the anniversary of the battle. It was an emotional experience for Dave and, I think, also a bit of a spiritual one. I hope he will not mind me saying that. It is clear from his report and recollections that, for those who were part of the conflict in some way, the battle scars still hurt and not all of them are on the outside.
I am reminded again of the many personnel we have in a number of theatres overseas. They are overseas at the direction of their country and in pursuit of her interests. I thank them, as I have on previous occasions, for their commitment and determination. I hope for their safe return to their families.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Save Our Parks Estate
Save Our Parks Estate
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 404 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 48 Territory-owned parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. The petition is in similar terms to a petition presented during the August sittings. I move that the petition be now read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth our great sense of betrayal by the Northern Territory government in its plans to hand over 48 Territory-owned parks to a select group of people.
- Your petitioners do humbly observe that the government plans to hand over Top End parks including: Mary River, Gregory National Park, Gregory’s Tree Historical Reserve, Fogg Dam Nature Reserve, Harrison Dam Conservation Area, Kuyunba Conservation Reserves, Flora River Nature Park, Melacca Swamp Conservation Area, and Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve.
- Your petitioners do further observe that the handover is akin to asking New South Wales residents to hand over Bondi Beach or South Australian residents to hand over Glenelg Beach, or indeed the waterways and beaches around Darwin, no questions asked.
- Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory take the necessary steps to make the Northern Territory government immediately rescind its decision to hand over the parks estate to sectional interests and to retain ownership of all parks for all Territorians.
CP zoned land at Dundee Beach
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition from 175 petitioners praying that the proposed rezoning of sections 3230, 3231, 3055 and 3056 at Dundee Beach from community purposes be not approved. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be now read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that sections 3230, 3231, 3055 and 3056 at Dundee Beach should remain as CP zoned land for the long-term development of Dundee area as a community. The loss of this CP zoned land will permanently restrict the amount of land available for all future community facilities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
VISITORS
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of visitors to Darwin from Ramingining. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
16th NT Australian Institute of
Management Awards
16th NT Australian Institute of
Management Awards
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, the 16th NT Australian Institute of Management Awards was held last Saturday at SKYCITY. The awards recognise excellence in management in the public and private sectors. Interestingly, the Territory was the first jurisdiction to hold the management awards and their success ensured that the rest of Australia soon followed.
The institute’s vision is simple: to be the Australian Manager’s Career Partner of First Choice. Awards like these are all about recognition and a celebration of those who excel in what they do. They are also a great way of raising awareness about the work that is being done day in and day out right across the Territory.
The key note speaker on Saturday was Launa Inman, the Managing Director of Target Australia. Launa was the Telstra Australian Business Woman of the Year in 2003 and a winner of the Commonwealth government Private and Corporate Sector Award. She gave an inspiring talk about managing people and building and mentoring highly effective workplace teams.
All the finalists were of a very high quality and it must have been very difficult for the judges to choose only one winner in each category. The Professional Manager of the Year Public Sector was Tony Cheng, Manager Works at the Alice Springs Town Council. Tony’s innovative approach to his work and, in particular to increasing green energy efficiency for building projects like the new aquatic centre, was applauded.
George Skene, Project Manager at Macmahon Contractors was the Professional Manager of the Year Private Sector. George has had over 42 years experience in the construction sector and the new Bradshaw Training Facility is just one of many of the projects he has managed. He is currently working on the waterfront.
The Owner/Manager of the Year was Mick Smith, Managing Director of Focus First National. Focus First National has been operating for over four years. Mick, a former policeman, gained experience in the real estate industry before taking the plunge and starting his own business. The business is renowned for its focus on the needs of the customer and attention to detail and in those four years the business has forged ahead.
Northpharm Pty Ltd Director of Pharmacy, Shelley Crowther, was named Young Manager of the Year. Shelley has not only provided RDH with their pharmaceutical needs but also worked closely with health centres in our remote communities.
The calibre of entries for the Young Manager of the Year was so high that the judges, for the first time, awarded a medal for Inspiring Leadership. Sandra O’Connor, Manager at Crocodylus Park, won the inaugural medal. Her team has been instrumental in boosting visitor numbers to the park by 20% this year.
Congratulations to Marie-Louise Pearson, the Chair of AIM NT, and all the judges for their time and effort. Congratulations also to Vicky Spence who organised the awards. It was a great night. The awards are a reminder that Territory managers are right up there with the best in the country and a big reason why the Territory economy keeps moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, the opposition adds its congratulations to those winners – Tony Cheng, George Skene, Mick Smith, Shelley Crowther, Sandra O’Connor from Crocodylus, and also to Marie-Louise who did a fantastic job.
The guest speaker once again lived up to the expectations of how this event is presented each year. Over the past number of years, they have had some outstanding, entertaining and challenging guest speakers, and this one was no exception. Launa Inman gave a very clear and inspirational message that would have remained with those who attended, particularly the issue of a manager being no stronger than their team. Every manager who came up embodied the sentiment that was so well described by Launa; that the weaknesses a leader or a manager has are compensated within the team and any recognition that a leader receives is borne out by the strength and depth of the team.
Flowing from that was the recognition of the need to invest in mentoring and developing strength in others, particularly those who are emerging, and that was an inspiration to all those who attended. It is something that we, as members of this Chamber, should recognise. There are young people out there who have that something special, whether they are on our side of the political fence or not, but they have a contribution to make. As Launa so well put it, even if they are in opposition commercially, it is worth making that investment for the greater good.
Public Liability Insurance
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, this morning I report on the outcomes to date of the reforms implemented by the Northern Territory government in response to the public liability insurance crisis. As a result of a series of events, including the collapse of HIH, the 11 September terrorist attacks, downturns in insurance and equity markets, public liability and professional indemnity insurance spiralled upwards in price and became less available and had a significant impact on Territory business, not-for-profit organisations and the broader community.
The Territory played an active role in the preparation of national reforms to overcome these problems. A range of law reforms were implemented, principally aimed at providing insurers with greater certainty in pricing risk, while ensuring that fair and reasonable compensation remained available.
Initiatives include:
measures aimed at containing growth in claims costs and changes to court processes to reduce the cost of legal proceedings while also increasing certainty for insurers;
adoption of a permanent impairment model for assessing general damages;
professional liability insurance reforms, including professional standards and proportionate liability legislation; and
requiring people to bear some liability for injuries they suffer in undertaking risky recreational activities such as parachuting or rock climbing.
Evidence is emerging that the reforms implemented to date are having the intended effect.
The most recent report of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s national claims and policies database finds that:
average professional indemnity premiums in the Territory fell 20.1% between 2004 and 2005, following a 6.8% fall the previous year;
in 2005, the Territory had the lowest average professional indemnity premium of $2249, compared to the national average of $4861, reflecting in part the relatively small size of Territory professional firms;
national average professional indemnity claims incurred declined by 23.9% between 2004 and 2005;
average public and product liability premiums in the Territory fell by 15% between 2004 and 2005, following a 1.5% fall the previous year;
the average public and product premium in the Territory in 2005 was $784 compared with the national average of $801; and
national average public and product liability claims incurred fell by 16.3% between 2004 and 2005.
The report also indicates that observed declines in average premiums was not a result of reduced coverage.
The extent of reforms implemented to date, combined with the results of independent industry monitoring, underscores the Territory government’s commitment to ensuring that insurance remains affordable and accessible for Territory businesses and members of the community.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, it is an interesting report, and well noted that the level of risk, as I understand it as presented in that report, is less in the Territory than it is nationally. I look forward to reading some more of the details of that report. However, I could not help but reflect upon this being roughly the anniversary of the time that this Treasurer began to soften the ground for a campaign to sell off the Territory Insurance Office, commencing at about this time last year when his old thought bubble went up: ‘We may be able to cash that asset in and perhaps have a short-term financial gain which would look really good on the books, because we do have a bit of a cash problem’ which prepared the ground for that. That whole exercise really galvanised the actions within the community to resist such a move, and good on them. I was only thinking this morning as I drove past TIO, that Meagan Moravec did a fantastic job in giving voice to the concerns of the wider community.
That whole exercise had one very beneficial outcome: the Treasurer admitted at the time that these issues related to risk carriage within the Territory and were difficult and complex matters. It appears that the report today gives us greater insight into the specific risk levels within the Territory. I guess, looking back, one of the other lessons that we have learned from that whole exercise of government is that TIO should be respected, and I trust it will be safe into the future.
It is no coincidence though that, this time this year, another thought bubble has been raised, and that is related to the possibilities of cost blowouts to the waterfront as we go into the Christmas period. We will see how that develops.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Speaker, in relation to the whole exercise of the legislation and the problems we were having in all of those insurance products three years ago, much has been learned, I believe, both by the industry itself, and by insurance companies of how to price. We are now getting significant differentials in pricing for Territory product as compared to the rest of Australia. The Territory is 1% of the national market; Australia is 1% of the global market. Insurance companies in the past did not differentiate down to that level. It is good that they now do.
In relation to TIO, this is a government that listens.
Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, today I speak about the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, and it is also appropriate that I also acknowledge the two gentlemen from Ramingining.
Last month, I had the privilege of being invited by the chairman of the authority, Mr Roy Hammer, to attend its recent meeting in Tennant Creek. I thank the authority for that opportunity.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority plays a paramount role in the protection of sacred sites in the Northern Territory, under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989. Authority members indicated to me that a main goal of the authority is to enhance relations between sacred site custodians and the wider Territorian population. It achieves this by consulting with custodians and proponents of work to reach mutually acceptable agreements, and issuing authority certificates setting out the conditions under which the proposed works may proceed; receiving and evaluating requests for the registration of sites; maintaining a register of sacred sites and making it available for public inspection; prosecuting offences against the act; and convening, reviewing and reporting on matters arsing from any appeal against a decision or action of the authority.
These authority functions not only ensure the protection of sacred sites, but increase the level of certainty for those wishing to commit resources for economic development. The work of the authority has also increased appreciation within the community of the value of Aboriginal sacred sites and the traditional interest in sacred sites.
The authority meets on a regular basis with various industry groups, including the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Seafood Council, and the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory. Land council staff and members are also regularly invited to meetings to discuss site protection issues. The Chairman of the Central Land Council was also at that meeting in Tennant Creek.
The authority board has 12 members, appointed for a period of three years. The current board members are: Mr Roy Hammer, Chairperson. Mr Hammer is a very important leader from the Borroloola Gulf region. Other board members include: Ms Milly Milliwanga, Deputy Chair and well-known artist from Barunga/Manyallaluk; Ms Banduk Marika, an artist and senior Rirratjingu woman from Yirrkala; Ms Jenny Inmulugulu, a senior woman for her clan and a Northern Land Council regional council member; Mr Captain Woditj, a senior custodian for lands reaching from Palumpa down to the Fitzmaurice River; Mr Robert Tipungwuti, senior Tiwi man who has held many representative and political roles; Ms Lynette Granites from Yuendumu, senior ceremonial leader; Mr Bernard Abbott, an Arrernte man from Wallace Rockhole and a Central Land Council member; Ms Lena Pula, a senior woman from Utopia; Mr Pepy Simpson, a Warumungu man from Tennant Creek and a member of the Central Land Council; Mr Dick Kimber, a well-known and respected historian from Alice Springs; and Ms Olga Havnen, experienced in Aboriginal policy at a senior level for many years.
Whilst the authority has recorded approximately 10 000 registered and recorded sites, many of the latter do not have a full complement of accompanying information. Given that, unfortunately, many senior Aboriginal people are now passing away, the authority perceives the accurate recording of data sites as a priority task. Significantly enhanced site records not only provide certainty to developers and the broader public, but allow Aboriginal people another avenue to preserve important culture data.
Mr Acting Speaker, I acknowledge the work of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and its staff and its important role in the protection of Aboriginal heritage.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, the protection and recognition of sacred sites is a very important area and issue for this wider community. To recognise something as sacred to another person is something that requires mutual respect. It also requires mutual understanding. That is one aspect of this whole area that does trouble me. I have raised this in a speech in this parliament before: that we should be able to advance that issue so that those who are outside the view that a certain object is sacred have every opportunity to have a better understanding of that which is sacred to another person.
There are aspects of this legislation and this process that does not accentuate that part of it. For the sake of the future, we need to make sure that we do attend to that so that we have a greater capacity for access to those who are outside these things that are held sacred by others - just as those who are of a different faith have some obligation to give insights to those who do not share that faith, into the reasons for their faith and hope.
There are also other issues. I foreshadow there is an issue that I, in opposition, will be attending to and that is the misuse of this legislation, or this capacity to register a site as sacred which does, particularly in the issue of the fishing industry, restrict their access to strategic waters. That area needs to be attended to so that, if it does displace fishing activity, there should be, in the interests of mutual obligation and respect, some kind of response to the negative effect that it places upon a fisherman. These are problems that need to be solved if we are going to advance these issues in the interests of mutual respect.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his supportive contribution. I readily agree with you as, indeed, does the whole of the Northern Territory, regarding the importance of sacred sites and the role that it plays in our society. The important thing here is that you have raised the issue of mutual understanding. That is the way forward. I congratulate the staff at the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, as they are actually doing that.
You referred to the restrictions to fishing. They are engaging with the Seafood Council of the Northern Territory, and working their way forward. Other industry groups they are talking to are the Cattlemen’s Association of the Northern Territory and the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory. I applaud the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority for that initiative. It is important to get out there to ensure that the role of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is made clear and publicised, and that there is the opportunity for two-way engagement. They are doing that and I applaud them.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Blain
Member for Blain
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, today I have received a request from the member for Blain to make a personal explanation in relation to allegations of plagiarism. I have accepted the request.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, during Question Time yesterday the minister for Education and Leader of Government Business said:
- The only policy the opposition can come up with has been ripped off an American website.
He went on further to suggest that the opposition was copying, cheating, and plagiarising policy from interstate and overseas.
Although the minister was wrong to suggest it is the only CLP policy in relation to education, this is not the most offensive thing he said. What is most offensive and incorrect is any suggestion the CLP and, by inference, I as the portfolio holder, plagiarised the policy. The opposition Healthy Eating School Canteen policy was developed after careful research of both international and national models, and written specifically for application in Territory school communities. It included education and implementation details.
The adoption of a universally recognised code, Red Amber Green, was adopted to best communicate an important message to students, similar to the use of a pyramid to describe a healthy eating scheme. Neither could be, or would be, regarded as original ideas. Allegations of policy plagiarism are serious matters and, without substantive evidence, it is a disgrace that the third highest ranking member of this government would make such allegations anywhere, especially in this Chamber.
To be clear, any suggestion of plagiarism is comprehensively wrong, without basis, and reprehensible.
Ms Carney: Hear, hear! You should be brave and say it outside. Wonder if you would say it then, you gutless wonder.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw that, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I will, Mr Acting Speaker.
BUSINESS NAMES BILL
(Serial 73)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the current Business Names Act and replace it with more modern legislation. The bill is an example of the government’s commitment to reducing red tape for businesses by abolishing the requirement that a business owner who resides interstate must appoint a resident agent in the Territory.
For member’s information, the current Business Names Act dates back to 1962 and replaced the previous ordinance which had its origins in the 1930s. Members may also be interested to learn that the act is largely based on legislation originating in Great Britain as a wartime measure in 1916, and it was designed in part to reveal foreign proprietors of British businesses.
Notwithstanding these origins, the objectives of the business names legislation in the 21st century are primarily that of consumer protection. It provides a means to identify the persons who use a name other than their own when conducting business in the Northern Territory. Reasons why the identify of such persons might be sought include: consumers seeking redress in relation to unsatisfactory goods and services; debt recovery by other traders; credit checks prior to goods being forwarded on consignment; and obtaining details for other legal proceedings. The act also provides a mechanism for ensuring that undesirable business names cannot be used; for example, names that might be offensive or mislead consumers about the nature of the business or the business operators.
The government recently determined it necessary to make several amendments to the current Business Names Act. In the course of drafting the amendments it became clear, because of the age of the act and its associated outdated terminology and drafting style, the exercise was larger than was anticipated. It was decided the changes were best achieved by a separate bill repealing the current act and re-enacting it. The result is this bill is more logically set out and easier to read. It substantially retains the requirements of the current act but with some changes to reflect modern best practice and business requirements in the Territory.
First, as the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs has been administering the Business Names Act for a number of years, the bill abolishes the statutory position of Registrar of Business Names, and cites the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs as the person responsible for administration of the act.
Another important change I mentioned earlier is the abolition of the resident agent requirement. The act currently requires a person carrying on business in the Territory under a business name, but who does not reside in the Territory, must appoint a resident agent. The appointment of a resident agent had the objective of facilitating the service of notices, and providing a local point of contact for persons who reside interstate. However, advances in communication and database technology have made it easy to locate and contact businesses based outside the Territory. Access to trader details and a number of state, territory and Commonwealth registers means there is no longer any justification for the added burden of costs associated with the appointment of a resident agent. The removal of the concept of resident agent is consistent with business names legislation in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.
Other changes include an updating of the penalty levels, the approval of forms by the commissioner instead of forms being prescribed by regulation, and other amendments of a statute law revision nature, such as removal of gender specific references, spent transitional provisions and other matters of this nature.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. Every day, optometrists attend to Territorians with eye infections, allergies and other conditions or injuries that require simple, well-established treatments using ocular medicines. However, optometrists are unable to provide treatment to many of their clients because section 29 of the current Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act does not recognise optometrists as an approved group of persons who can supply medication.
The purpose of this amendment to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act is to remove that restriction and allow appropriately qualified optometrists to supply a restricted range of medication for the treatment of eye problems.
Optometrists are the primary eye care providers to the Northern Territory community. They have an excellent track record of detecting and diagnosing eye disease. Optometrists using over-the-counter medications already treat many minor ocular diseases on a daily basis. Optometrists have also established co-management relationships with ophthalmologists and, together, they care for patients with potentially vision threatening conditions such as glaucoma, macular degeneration, and diabetic retinopathy. Under the current legislation, however, optometrists must refer clients to general practitioners and ophthalmologists for a written prescription for eye medications.
Permitting optometrists to supply a range of medications to treat eye disorders will ensure that patients receive prompt and appropriate treatment, particularly in remote and rural areas. A number of systems will be put in place to ensure safety and quality. Only those optometrists who have completed a rigorous education program will be authorised by the Optometrist Board of the Northern Territory to supply medications to their patients. A therapeutic advisory committee will be established by the board to provide advice to the board on matters relating to therapeutic medications. The supply of medications by authorised optometrists will be subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by the Optometrist Board.
Finally, authorised optometrists will be required to practice in accordance with the board-endorsed clinical pathways for optometric management of ocular conditions.
Both Tasmania and Victoria allow the administration and supply of scheduled medications by optometrists, and Queensland is in the process of introducing a similar system. Note that the current act already recognises medical practitioners, dentists, veterinary surgeons, dental therapists, certain registered nurses, and certain Aboriginal heath workers depending on practice settings, as persons who can supply scheduled medications.
Ophthalmologists in the Northern Territory were consulted in the preparation of these amendments. Due to the demand for eye health in the Northern Territory and the limited numbers of ophthalmologists, I am advised that they have been supportive of changes that will, in practice, lead to better eye care for Territorians.
This amendment will provide for the public interest by increasing the range of health care practitioners who can manage ocular conditions, while putting systems in place to guarantee the safety and quality of care. Patients will be able to choose whom they consult about their eye disorder: a general practitioner, an ophthalmologist or optometrist.
Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BILL
(Serial 69)
(Serial 69)
Continued from 30 August 2006.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I had not planned to speak to this, but having read the second reading speech by the minister at the last sittings, I felt that there was very little that the opposition would be opposed to in this bill. However, I have a few questions I look forward to the minister responding to in his closing remarks.
In the bill, the definition of bioprospecting does not quite define what bioprospecting is, apart from the point he made that there was a whole list of what does not constitute bioprospecting. That leaves a whole range of things that could be classified as bioprospecting. In terms of discovering biological material that could become commercially useful, most times it is due to good fortune and good luck, rather than specific exploration for something biological that could be of use in the future.
Many a time there is an accidental discovery, somebody stumbling over something that looked particularly interesting, and they go from there. Any material that is thus obtained, with or without permission of the owner of that particular object or biological material, could sit stored away for years and years, or could be experimented upon for many years. As interest in the discovery grows, commercial interests may take over and continue to fund research of the material until such time that the material becomes commercially useful.
On reading the bill quickly, I was not able to determine at what point in time the traditional owners’ interests comes to bear, and how a commercial operation that has bioprospecting and researching material would then have to pay whatever commercial benefits to the owner of the biological material. Obviously, if somebody stumbles over, say, a plant on the side of a public road, there is no compensation provided by the discoverer to what could be seen as the traditional owner of that biological material. Say, for instance, on traditional lands you have a particular species of a plant, but that plant is also grown on the verges of the Stuart Highway. There is a traditional link between the owners of the land and the plant; does the accidental discovery of the plant along the verge of Stuart Highway constitute bioprospecting? I do not know how you would define that. While a traditional group of people might be linked to a particular plant and say: ‘This is our totem’ – if that is the right word to use – ‘and thus it is our property’, if somebody finds a plant on the verge of Stuart Highway, how do you differentiate between whether that person owes any obligation to the traditional owner that is associated with that particular plant?
It is a fairly complex issue. It is the same issue about intellectual property or, in this case, actual property rights. Who has the property rights? I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and I cannot discover that by reading the bill. If I were to have a property that has a plant growing on it and I invited somebody to come onto my property to bioprospect, and then another group said: ‘This plant has grown on our traditional land for a long time’, who then has the commercial right to the property? Does the traditional owner have the commercial right? Do I have the commercial right because I invited the bioprospector to come to my land to research the plant that I found interesting in the first instance, and the complications go on? I hope there is an explanation possible.
On the surface, it appears it is fair enough. People who have a link to a particular biological resource should be compensated in some way. Is compensation just an acknowledgement that the property was discovered in a particular area and certain people have traditional link, or is there a commercial value? I do not know and it is too complex to consider. As I have said, I have not exercised my mind to this in any great detail so it is a bit hard to debate this any further. I did not seek a briefing because I was not planning to talk about this.
With those few comments, on the surface I support that there should be some rights of people who own the biological material. However, there are some questions I hope the minister can answer. If you can do that, apart for that, I support the bill, but I will support it with some reservation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I support and commend my colleague’s Biological Resources Bill. I commend any bill which seeks to protect the unique biological resources of our Territory. I especially support one that does it in a way that has the potential to generate income for our remote communities.
Recognition of the validity of sustainable use of wildlife is, of course, deeply imbedded within traditional Aboriginal perspectives of plants and animals.
The Northern Territory has been an early player in the field of bioprospecting, and doing it well before current frameworks were in place. We have, therefore, been an important player in developing the frameworks with our state and federal counterparts. The Northern Territory was well positioned to ensure that indigenous interests have been recognised in developing the policies and legislation.
A nice example of early indigenous involvement in bioprospecting was the contractual arrangement put in place between the Tiwi people and the former Australian Medical Research and Development Corporation. The Tiwi Land Council entered into an agreement with the Australian Medical Research and Development Corporation, or AMRAD - later known as Cerylid Biosciences - in the mid-1990s to allow the collection of plant samples on the Tiwi Islands. These samples were screened for pharmacological activity, and potential new pharmaceuticals. As well as possible future royalties to the Tiwis, there were other forms of benefits such as the sponsorship of the Tiwi plant and animal book on Tiwi traditional ecological knowledge. It came as no surprise that the Northern Territory would be in a position to develop its own dedicated legislation to provide a legal framework governing access to biological resources within the Northern Territory for the purposes of bioprospecting.
The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act already allows plants and animals to be taken only under a permit. This new Biological Resources Bill utilises that provision and builds on a number of other elements. It ensures that:
- (a) it gains prior informed consent from the resource access provider;
(b) it recognises traditional indigenous knowledge; and
(c) that the level of monetary and non-monetary benefits sharing is agreed too.
Importantly, the new legislation provides a clear process to gain legal access to biological resources, and then provides a certainty of legal ownership of samples collected under the agreement.
Bioprospecting seems to me to make sense of some of the most archaic elements of biological research. For example, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is home to several expert scientists and biologists. One of these experts is Dr Chris Glasby who is an annelid worm specialist. He spends a lot of time researching marine nereid worms of the genus Perinereis. These worms are common in Northern Australia but not much is known about them, yet they apparently have promising biomedical and waste management potential. For example - and forgive me for getting a little out of my depth with the science - the extracellular giant haemoglobin from one species of marine worm has potential application for carbohydrate gluing which is a good application in orthopaedic surgery. From the same species, which is about to become a very useful worm, a peptide has been found to have significant antimicrobial activity which may offer general application in the search for new antibiotics. The member for Sanderson’s contribution yesterday to the MAGNT statement went into depth regarding the science area. Other species in this genus have been found to be useful in treating domestic waste. Dr Glasby’s research on these worms is aimed at discovering what other species exist in Northern Australia and their potential for human use.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is something of a leading light in this area. MAGNT is the principle Australian partner in a cooperative research and bioprospecting program with the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the United States National Cancer Institute. This program is worth approximately $1.5m. The program is led by the museum’s Dr Belinda Alvarez de Glasby, a world-class expert on sponges, and has involved the collection of samples of marine animals such as soft corals and sponges for screening by the National Cancer Institute for new pharmaceutical compounds with curative and preventative properties for cancer and AIDS. The collaboration between the Coral Reef Research Foundation and the National Cancer Institute is subject to a benefit sharing arrangement which provides for royalties in the event that a compound from the Northern Territory is licensed to a pharmaceutical company for production and marketing.
Over 800 samples have now been sent from the Northern Territory for screening and extraction of bioactive compounds. However, it could be several years before there are definite results. There have been short-term benefits though. MAGNT has been able to build capacity in this marine research area and significantly increase our knowledge of the Territory’s marine biodiversity. The bioprospecting program has also enabled leverage of additional funding from the Australian Biological Resource Survey to undertake further work in conjunction with Charles Darwin University, which is aimed at gaining a better understanding of the potential pharmaceutical properties of these marine organisms. This fundamental research into our marine life is of vital importance and may lead to further exciting biodiscoveries that could be worth millions of dollars to the Territory in the future.
We cherish our wildlife in the Territory: our flora and our fauna. This bill adds another level of protection for our flora and fauna as a biological resource and provides a path to creating economic, research and employment opportunities. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the bill.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Speaker, I support this important groundbreaking bill designed to provide the important legal framework governing access to our precious biological resources. These are no less our resources than those in the ground or in our rivers or seas, hence the use of terms such as biodiversity, biological resources, bioprospecting, biodiscovery and even biopiracy.
Biodiversity refers to the intrinsic value of life; all living things that share the third planet from the sun with us. It is a fundamental aspect of ecological processes and we rely on biodiversity in order to live. Biodiversity has three major elements and these should be noted: species diversity; ecosystem diversity; and genetic diversity, all of which are interdependent and equally important. Biodiversity provides ecosystem services, biological resources and social benefits.
Our biological resources within the relevance to this bill relate to the collection of chemicals or compounds that exist in our natural flora or fauna with particular importance as major sources of active pharmaceutical compounds sourced, for example, from flowering plants: sunscreen components from corals, and insecticide sourced from our native trees. These are the types of products that we are looking to be able to selectively collect for the betterment of mankind. Because they are such an important resource, it is quite understandable that we have a right to protect and manage these resources. There is potential for big financial gains at the potential detriment of those referred to as ‘resource access providers’ in the bill.
Let me define for you who are the resource access providers, because that is an important aspect. Under the act, a resource access provider is: for freehold land, the owner of the land; for Aboriginal land, the Aboriginal Land Trust established under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act; for an Aboriginal community living area, the owner of the land is an association within the meaning of the Associations Act or Aboriginal councils and associations; for land subject to native title, the registered native title corporate; for land held under park freehold, the relevant park land trust under the Parks and Reserves Act; for Crown land, the NT government; for special purpose leases, the NT government again; and for land under the Pastoral Land Act, the NT government.
The stakes are high and governments do need to act to protect all stakeholders and potential stakeholders. As an example, if the land is subject to a pastoral lease under the Pastoral Land Act, the resource access provider for the purposes of bioprospecting is the Territory government, but physical access must be arranged with the lessee. The NT government is to be commended for being up there with the most proactive of states in enacting the necessary legislation now; not waiting for other jurisdictions to do it first.
Let me discuss some aspects of the bill. The most important aspect is the protection of the resource. This is great legislation which seeks to utilise and protect our valuable natural resources. Through biodiversity we can open biodiversity treasures while keeping our forests, rivers and seas untouched for future generations. Through this bill, we have the technology to explore the value in biodiversity without having to destroy it. As I said before, the bill ensures that this happens.
This bill sets the rules by which the process of biodiscovery will be managed. It is to the benefit of our stakeholders. We must act as custodians of our environment for future generations. We also recognise that plants, animals and other organisms in our environment contain treasures of great value to all of us. Biodiversity gives us the potential to search for new and unique ways to treat diseases and overcome increasing problems of antibiotic resistance. While we are talking about biodiversity, we should note that Australia is one of only 17 mega-diverse environments in the world, and the combined biological diversity in those 17 mega-diverse environments accounts for 80% of the world’s biological diversity.
There are ethical guidelines that the bill encompasses. It will not only provide guidance to those collecting samples, but also support best practice in the industry. Bioprospectors will be bound to undertake their prospecting activities in an ecologically sustainable manner. There are jobs and skills. This bill gives us the opportunities for more jobs and capturing a greater share of global research and development expenditure. Of course, these solutions are long-term solutions. Let me stress this: this is long-term legislation, being put in place now to protect our future generations.
This brings me to the point about the traditional uses. We can all relate to how our mothers and our grandmothers used to talk about particular remedies and things they knew from their childhood. Some of them are unique to Australia, some to other parts of the world. This is not something new, this has been around. This is about bringing that whole process into the 21st century. We should appreciate that some 80% of the world’s population, even now, rely on traditional medicines because it is either cheaper, more accessible, or more culturally appropriate.
Which leads me to our traditional owners. The value of significance of traditional knowledge handed down over thousands of years by the indigenous people is recognised in this bill. We have gone further than most other jurisdictions, in fact, I would say further than any other jurisdiction, in making sure that the benefits from biodiscovery flow on to the traditional knowledge holders.
In conclusion, I will make three or four points here. We are at the forefront. This is new territory for us, but we are well in front of some of the other states which have not started the process of protecting their natural resources. We are not waiting for others; we are up there amongst the best. It is a bipartisan approach. It also has the support of the federal government, whose officers are promoting our legislation as best practice. That is a credit to us.
DBERD will be working closely with the departments of Parks and Wildlife and Marine Services to ensure there is no double handling for people wanting to apply for permits, and no unnecessary delay. I acknowledge, and I am glad and appreciate that the opposition does support this bill, because this is important for future generations when we are all gone. That should be acknowledged and I do appreciate that.
Finally, there is no conflict with existing laws. The legislation does not conflict with permits needed to collect plants and wildlife for agriculture or animal husbandry purposes. It is not planned to introduce a fee for permits at this stage as it is unknown how many permits will be sought in the short term.
Mr Acting Speaker, I am proud to support this important bill, and we should all be proud in this House, because it is for future generations.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Speaker, for the Northern Territory, this is the first time an open and transparent government scheme for access to and using biological resources has been proposed. The Biological Resources Bill has been developed to provide a legislative framework to support the policy for access to and use of biological resources in the Northern Territory. The bill includes the following key elements: prior informed consent; access and benefit sharing agreements; a framework for reporting and monitoring; and the ability to issue and revoke certificates of provenance.
Prior informed consent ensures that the resource access provider is aware of bioprospecting activities that may occur. Benefit sharing agreements required under the bill ensure the resource access provider has potential to receive a benefit in the event a commercially significant lead is identified. It is about capitalising on sustainable economic opportunities from our natural resources, and encouraging the development and adoption of more innovative and productive technologies.
Certificates of provenance are the key legitimatising factor for biodiscovery in the modern world and represent an essential part of the bill. In the past biopiracy has been an issue in the Northern Territory, with a specific exampled outlined during the second reading speech. This regime would provide certainty and help ensure that biopiracy is all but eliminated in the Territory.
The policy and bill have taken a number of years to reach this point. This has involved considerable consultation and research into world best practices in an effort to create a framework establishing us as a global leader in the field.
My department of DBERD has received requests from both the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments for assistance in developing similar policy and legislation. At an international level, the Commonwealth government has recommended for countries with an interest in developing similar legislation and policy to look to the Northern Territory as a starting point and potential model.
The importance of this legislation has been reinforced by the Japanese Bioindustry Association (JBA), which has contacted my department regarding a delegation which will visit the Territory in early December to discuss access, certificates of provenance, and collaboration to benefit both the Northern Territory and the JBA. The JBA has previously refused to deal with Australian states lacking in legislative framework for biodiscovery. The JBA has around 1700 members, including giants such as Mitsubishi, Toyota, Dow Chemicals, Santori, Fuji, Fujitsu, Olympus and Hitachi.
Biodiscovery is intimately linked with pharmaceuticals and human health. However, natural products are increasingly seen as being able to provide new sustainable pathways for industrial process and production of bioindustrial feed stocks. Without our diversity of ecosystems and species within these, the Territory is an attractive place to undertake biodiscovery.
With the introduction of this bill, we will be able to go to the world with confidence to create a new industry and attract investment and build employment in areas not previously possible. By passing this bill, the House will endorse legislation which will be a benchmark and provide opportunities for development of capacity and capability in the area of biodiscovery within the Territory. In the business of parliament, we are often involved in important matters but, just occasionally, there are highlights where the House has the opportunity to pass groundbreaking, historical and world-leading legislation. Today, we have done just that, which is great news for the Territory and for future of all Territorians.
I will respond to questions raised by the member for Greatorex, who understands a brand new bill is a groundbreaking bill, and there will be some questions. He gave the example of somebody picking up a flower from the side of the Stuart Highway. He probably picked that flower because it was nice. However, if that person was a scientist and goes back and puts it in the laboratory to find out what is in the flower, what this person is really doing is bioprospecting in accordance with section 5, which describes what bioprospecting is. If a person picked wildflowers just because he liked the wildflower, that is not bioprospecting. However, the moment that person starts using that wildflower for biodiscovery, then it becomes bioprospecting. Then, of course, the beneficiary there would be the Territory because the legal owner of the road and the road reserve is the Northern Territory of Australia.
On the other hand, he said if I invite somebody to come to my land to do bioprospecting, that is fantastic; no problems at all. The difference, of course, is that under section 11, that person, in order to carry out bioprospecting on private land, has to seek a permit, which is issued by the CEO of the department administering this act. In order for the CEO to issue this permit, he has to satisfy himself that a number elements are covered, including that a benefit sharing agreement has been negotiated, and all the information included in it. The benefit sharing agreement has to be in accordance with section 29.
Returning to the issue of the road where a person picked up a flower, did an analysis on the flower and found a beneficial chemical. That person, without knowing he was bioprospecting, now wants to legitimise his bioprospecting. He can come to us under section 30 and go through a mechanism to make this bioprospecting legal. The legislation clearly describes the different stages: what is biodiscovery; what is bioprospecting; and how you go about it. That is very important.
I would like to repeat that this is groundbreaking, historical and world-leading legislation. I pay tribute, first of all, to my colleague, the member for Wanguri, for introducing this legislation in his previous capacity as the minister for DBERD, and to the people who did the extremely hard and great work in the department, particularly Murray Hird and Kylie Higgins. They need to be congratulated. We also have to congratulate ourselves as a parliament today. We will pass the best and most comprehensive legislation in the world about bioprospecting and biodiscovery, and biodiversity.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
National Radioactive Waste Facility
in the Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, on 15 July 2005, the Commonwealth government announced that it would build a national radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory at one of three sites selected by the Commonwealth. The proposal is for a facility consisting of buildings for unloading and handling materials; shallow trenches for storage of radioactive waste in containers; and a perimeter fence. Based on limited information from the Commonwealth, we found out the dump would be used to house Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste. This means all nuclear waste produced by the Commonwealth departments, agencies and statutory bodies, including the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor and any military ordnance, would be stored at this dump. We were told that from 2011 the nuclear dump would also house spent nuclear fuel rods returned under contractual arrangements from France and Scotland. It was this deadline which justified the hasty establishment of a nuclear waste facility.
It remains something of a mystery as to how these three sites were chosen because Territorians had been given a categorical assurance that we would not be getting a nuclear waste dump. On 30 September 2004, just before the federal election, Senator Ian Campbell as minister for the Environment, stated:
- The Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland. So we can be quite categorical about that because the Northern Territory is on the mainland … so the Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute categorical assurance.
Whilst Senator Campbell may have grasped the geography of the situation, the promise made no difference. A few months later we were told that three sites in the Territory had been chosen as possible sites for a nuclear waste dump. Truth, it seems, has a very short half-life when it comes to pronouncements by Senator Campbell.
In November 2005, the Australian government introduced two bills to support construction of the facility: the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendments) Bill which became law in late November. This legislation was designed to ‘put beyond doubt’ the federal government’s power to select a site and build a nuclear waste dump. The legislation provides for a facility to manage waste generated by the Commonwealth. It proscribes actions that may ‘regulate, hinder, or prevent’ work towards the creation of the facility, and it overrides any state or territory legislation that may compete with the Commonwealth’s intention in this matter. Further, this legislation allows the Commonwealth to extinguish all rights in connection with land selected for the facility, or for an all-weather road that would access it. Any existing, or future, Territory laws that purport to prohibit, regulate, or hinder site selection, the establishment and operation of the facility, or the transportation of waste, are all declared to have no effect.
A most unusual aspect of the Commonwealth’s legislation is that it specifically removes entitlements to procedural fairness in relation to the facility by removing the right of a judicial review. These provisions deliberately, and specifically, set aside existing laws made by the democratically elected Legislative Assembly of the self-governing Northern Territory. They prescribe future and other laws as being of no effect and are a serious erosion of the democratic rights of Territorians, and are contrary to the concept of self-government; create legal uncertainty to the application of Northern Territory laws; and are contrary to the principles of good governance. This is unwarranted and unjustified.
Regardless of anyone’s personal views on whether we ought to have a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, any right minded Territorian should be outraged at the process the Commonwealth has used.
This legislation comprehensively and deliberately overrides and extinguishes rights, acts and provisions of the Territory. It erodes the whole principle of self-government. The process departs totally from the long-running consensus-based process to create a national waste facility since 1979, including parliamentary inquiries.
Since 1992, the process has included agreed scientific and environmental criteria for suitable sites. Discussions have reflected broad agreement that there should be a central facility that would aggregate waste from 30 Commonwealth sites and 100 state and territory sites where radioactive waste is stored. This waste amounts to 3700 m of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level radioactive waste and about 500 m of long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste of which 90% is generated by HIFAR, the High Flux Australian Reactor, at Lucas Heights.
Within this process, the majority view has been that a central holding place accepting radioactive waste from all jurisdictions would provide higher levels of safety and security. The Commonwealth has now abandoned this model. It has imposed a dump for Commonwealth waste on the Territory, and left the states and territories to make their own arrangements for waste generated in their jurisdictions.
The way the Australian government has gone about this whole process of site selection approval for a nuclear waste repository is amateurish, patronising, superficial, ignorant and irresponsible. The process was so dismissive that I pledged to find out more and made a personal visit to France and Finland, amongst the biggest nuclear nations, to understand the problem and how they tackle waste disposal.
The main reason invoked by the Commonwealth to justify its high-handed actions is the contractual obligations between Australia and France; the obligation to accept used HIFAR fuel rods returning in 2011 from reprocessing in France. These are regarded as long-lived intermediate level waste - though I will say more about the trickery associated with definitions of radioactive waste. They are more radioactive than most Australian waste and, therefore, more sensitive in relation to public opinion.
Initially, the Commonwealth was very coy about what type of waste was to be stored at the facility. On 15 July 2005, Brendan Nelson said:
- The waste to be management in the facility is low and intermediate level radioactive waste resulting from the medical, industrial and research use of radioactive materials by Commonwealth agencies.
The information we are getting from the Australian government is not accurate and is certainly not complete. It took my trip to France and Finland and personal meetings with many different people and organisations to discover what is going on with Australia’s nuclear waste.
Let me outline the true story of our contractual arrangements with France over the reprocessing and return of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights.
In 1999, ANSTO, or the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the operator of HIFAR and COGEMA (now AREVA) operator of the French plutonium factories at La Hague, signed a contract for the management of ANSTO’s research reactor spent fuel. The agreement envisaged the reprocessing of spent fuel from HIFAR as well as future spent fuel from the now approved Replacement Research Reactor.
The quantity of spent fuel sent to France from the HIFAR at Lucas Heights is 3613 kg of metal. Four shipments of spent fuel have occurred, with the rest of the spent fuel to be sent to France in one shipment every three to five years, the first planned for 2009. Each shipment is expected to have 100 to 200 fuel assemblies for reprocessing.
The year 2011 will not be the end of the matter. On the contrary, ANSTO will continue to send shipments of spent fuel to France. COGEMA will continue to reprocess it. The waste will continue to be returned to Australia. The return shipment of waste from spent fuel is scheduled, under the contract, to take place in 2015 the latest. Publicly, they say the deadline is 2011. The ANSTO/COGEMA agreement does not mention the year 2011.
Why is the Commonwealth government not admitting to this extra four years and insisting on rushing through with no consultation? We are told by the federal government that we need this waste dump, and we need it fast, otherwise we cannot fulfil our obligation to accept back the reprocessed fuel.
I have already explained that the deadline of 2011 claimed by the Commonwealth does not exist. The lack of an appropriate disposal facility in Australia is only one of the obstacles for a quick solution to the legal challenges. We have never been publicly told that there are legal uncertainties in France that could impact on the arrangement. About 80% of the HIFAR spent fuel was shipped to France between 2000 and 2004. Several French NGOs and independent experts have asserted for many years that the French law of 1991 prohibiting the storage of foreign nuclear waste in France has been violated continuously by the long-term storage and reprocessing of foreign spent fuel rods on French soil.
In December 2005, the Court of Annulment, France’s highest civil court, said importing of the ANSTO spent fuel was illegal. This means, in principle, that the material that has already been shipped to La Hague, and not yet processed, has to be sent back to Australia. The future of ANSTO’s unprocessed spent fuel rods in France remains subject to large legal uncertainties in France. Several scenarios need to be evaluated in the light of these legal uncertainties:
(1) the 1999 ANSTO/COGEMA contract may be carried out. This means that the entire quantity of Lucas Heights’ fuel is reprocessed and the resulting wastes are sent back; or
(2) the 1999 ANSTO/COGEMA contract may have to be abandoned. Australia will then have to take back all remaining unprocessed spent fuel, as well as waste resulting from already reprocessed spent fuel.
It would be very useful if the Commonwealth government could have these scenarios evaluated before making its disposal decision. Clearly, we need to have a management system in place that can handle these different situations. I see no evidence of that - no evidence of planning at all.
There is more misleading information. It is not physically Australian waste that shall be returned. My impression from the way our legal obligation is described by the Commonwealth is that there is a neat package of reprocessed fuel and waste sitting in France labelled ‘Australia’, and that will be returned to us in 2011. This is simply not true. What we get back will be a proportion of the by-product of spent fuel from every country that sends its waste to France for reprocessing, divided between the contributing countries. Each country of origin of the waste will receive a proportion of different elements from the reprocessing of the fuel. The main elements are:
vitrified fission product which is high level waste;
Under the agreement, uranium separated during the process will not be returned to Australia but will stay in France. However, the plutonium contained in the spent fuel will be returned to ANSTO and included in the returned waste. We will have a neat package of plutonium marked ‘Australia’.
Let me repeat the important points:
after reprocessing, COGEMA, now AREVA, gets ownership of the recovered uranium;
ANSTO in Australia gets back generic waste generated from the global reprocessing activities at the La Hague facility in France;
La Hague reprocesses a diversity of source materials, much from Russia, but certainly from all over; and
the waste returned to Australia includes waste generated from all these sources, including plutonium.
This facility will not simply be a waste dump, it will also be a plutonium dump. What else would they do with it? Most waste returning to Australia will be of the first two types – the vitrified fission products and the compacted residues. They come in two separate types of containers with different storage requirements. The fact that one of the main components of the waste to be returned to Australia is vitrified fission products should give us all cause to stop and consider why the Commonwealth continues to tell us that we are worrying about nothing; that all we are dealing with in our nuclear dump is low- or intermediate-level waste.
VFP is high-level waste in anyone’s language, and classified as such internationally. It requires long-term specific storage, and not just in bunkers on the surface or trenches near the surface. At best, it requires a final disposal solution. It needs specific disposal, specific sites and, probably, specific legislation. The French government, after 15 years of research, has not yet come up with its final disposable solutions for high-level waste. However, our national government thinks it just can pick a site in the Northern Territory, do a bit of desktop research and start plonking radioactive waste on it. I firmly believe that the Australian government is at best rushing, in an ill-informed way, into establishing a nuclear waste dump to fulfill contractual obligations. At worst, it is misleading the Australian public about what is to be stored, what the legal requirements are in terms of the international contract, and what the necessary safety and security standards should be.
I will be proposing to the Australian government that they employ an international expert to properly analyse the situation; the contract between ANSTO and COGEMA; the legal uncertainties and obligations; and all the questions which have impact on the nature of the storage and disposal facilities required. This analysis is essential to allow us to identify areas of concern for Australian authorities.
It is not good enough for the Australian government to simply pick a site, build a bunker, stick all the government’s nuclear waste on a truck, and transport it through many communities across 3000 km or by ship around the coast, and through our harbour to offload it. This approach to managing our nuclear waste is amateurish and dangerous, and makes us a laughing stock compared to other countries.
Let us compare this sorry process with two countries which take seriously their obligations for final disposal of nuclear waste.
I will start with France. It was vital that I heard all sides of the nuclear waste debate, and not focus simply on one element of the argument. I met with the Director of CEA, France’s Atomic Energy Commisariat, and was given a tour of the Orphee nuclear reactor, one of the research reactors operated by the CEA. I also met with the head of ANDRA, France’s National Radioactive Waste Management Agency. The first thing that struck me was the honesty and openness of all of the officials I met, up to the highest level of government and industry - none of the secrecy or obstruction that we face here in trying to find out how the Commonwealth has made its decision.
I spent several fascinating hours in discussion with the helpful and informative Business Manager and Head of International Affairs with ANDRA. They explained the complexities of defining nuclear waste. It certainly is not as simple as dividing stuff up into low-, intermediate- and high-level waste and assigning the risk accordingly. There is, in fact, a matrix of classification, a system that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative criteria, which should determine different management solutions. Low-level and intermediate-level waste, for example, will need different disposal solutions depending on whether it is a short lived - that is, less than 30 years - or long lived. Low-level short lived waste - or A waste - can be accommodated in a surface disposal facility. Low-level, long lived waste - or B waste - can possibly be dealt with by long-term storage rather than final disposal. ANDRA has determined that the high-level waste, either short or long lived - or C waste - needs final disposal. Long-term storage is not acceptable. It also requires final disposal for intermediate-level but long-lived waste.
France is still struggling with finding its ‘final disposal solution’ and, in the meantime, is continuing with long-term storage. It is doing long-term investigations on the potential sites for final disposal in different geologies, as it is required to do under legislation. A key finding of research carried out by the CEA is that ‘long-term storage is not a definite solution and cannot replace disposal’.
The CEA lists a number of key factors for successful waste disposal. They are: clear and stable regulations and acceptance process; clear and stable prices; available and adequate funding; coordination between waste producers and storage/disposal operators; experience sharing; and communication and transparency. Not a single one of these key factors is being met by the Commonwealth - not a single one.
I turn now to Finland and their quest for a final disposal solution for their nuclear waste. Finnish law requires nuclear waste generated in Finland to be disposed of in Finland. It prohibits waste generated elsewhere to be handled, stored or disposed in Finland. Under the Nuclear Energy Act in Finland construction of a nuclear facility of considerable great significance, which includes waste repositories, requires a government decision-in-principle that the project is in line with the overall good of society.
Before the decision-in-principle, there must be a publicly available full description of the facility, an environmental impact statement, and safety statement. I quote a translation of Finland’s Nuclear Energy Act:
- The Ministry of Trade and Industry shall provide residents and municipalities in the immediate vicinity of the facility as well as local authorities an opportunity to present their opinions in writing before the decision-in-principle is made. Furthermore … the Ministry shall arrange a public hearing in the municipality where the planned site of the facility is located and … the public shall have the opportunity to give their opinions (and) … opinions that have been presented shall be made known to the government.
There is more, and let us bear in mind that all this has to happen under Finnish law before an in-principle decision to build a waste facility has been made. Again I quote from their Nuclear Energy Act.
- Before making the decision-in- principle … the government shall ascertain that the municipality where the nuclear facility is planned to be located … is in favour of the facility and that no facts indicating a lack of sufficient prerequisites have arisen.
When all the processes for making the decision-in-principle have been completed, it has to be forwarded to parliament for final decision.
From what I have seen and heard, the Finnish approach to nuclear waste management would have to define the term ‘best practice’ in terms of legislative requirement, public process, and sheer technical expertise.
The emphasis has been on thorough long-term planning and preparation, and community involvement. As early as 1983, the Finnish government had a policy decision on objectives and schedules for a national waste management program -the producers of nuclear waste are fully responsible for waste management and its costs. Thus, the price of electricity in Finland generated by nuclear power includes the cost of nuclear waste management. When calculating the cost of waste management, the cost of decommissioning the power plants is also included. If the present plants run for 40 years, the total cost of nuclear waste management in Finland will be about €2000m, or about $A3.2bn.
There is a national waste management fund under the Ministry of Trade and Industry which collects payments from the producers of nuclear waste. The fund’s present holdings are about €1400m, which fully covers the liabilities related to the future management of nuclear waste.
I fully accept that this situation is vastly different from Australia where we do not have nuclear power generation. However, the lesson here is the need for thorough planning, for long-term vision and commitment, and for appropriate resourcing for the best possible facility. Yet, in the few days since I wrote these words, it seems Australia could, indeed, be heading for a nuclear power generation industry. Only yesterday, John Howard was quoted in The Australian as saying:
- I believe very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to global warming …
The clear inference from this is that the Northern Territory waste dump is being designed to take all Australian nuclear waste, including from a planned nuclear power generation industry. This will have huge implications for the volumes of waste to be stored. Again, we are destined to be overridden. What price statehood, Mr Acting Speaker? The Commonwealth seems set on re-badging us - not us the Northern Territory but the nuclear Territory.
Finland has been preparing for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel for 25 years. Site selection for nuclear waste began in 1983, with more than 100 candidate sites identified by 1985. Site investigations and characterisations took place from 1986 to 1992, producing a short list of four possible sites. They underwent detailed assessments from 1993 to 2000. In 2000, the government made the decision-in-principle to develop a site at Olkiluoto on the south-west coast adjacent to the power plant. The rationale for selecting the final site was based on the site evaluation and mainly stable geology, but another important reason was that the project had been fully accepted by the local community as part of their future development strategy.
Unlike the process we are being confronted with for site selection by the Australian government, the local community in Finland must formally accept the proposal to have a nuclear facility in their municipality. The local authority has the power of veto over whether a nuclear facility can be established. In this case, the local authority voted 20 for and seven against the waste facility. The government of Finland encourages and embraces consultation. It does not shy away from it or shroud its processes in secrecy.
Following the decision-in-principle to establish a site for geological disposal of all nuclear waste at Olkiluoto, a company was established, Posiva, which is owned by the two companies that generate electricity from nuclear power plants. Posiva has to implement the final disposal of spent fuel from all power plants. The first stage in constructing the final disposal facility is to construct an underground facility. This facility, known as ONKALO, is a small-scale trial of the final disposal facility of which it will ultimately become a part. When I say small scale, I mean only in comparison with the completed version. It is a very impressive facility; almost awe-inspiring.
I was privileged to be shown around ONKALO, now under construction. It comprises a system of access tunnels and ventilation shafts drilled into the granite to a finished depth of minus-500 m where the waste will be finally stored in a series of shafts or caves, dependant on the type of waste. The facility is currently constructed down to 95 m and, even at that level, it is quite mind-blowing. Walking down the access tunnels deeper into the bedrock and emerging into huge, very high-tech caverns fully equipped with remote devices to move and store pods of waste is an experience which will stick in my mind.
The ONKALO characterisation facility will be completed in 2010, with monitoring and investigations on its performance being undertaken throughout. Once ONKALO and its investigations have been completed, work will start on the construction of the final disposal repository, of which ONKALO will operate as the first element.
A number of things struck me as a result of my visit and they spell out useful, even vital, messages for our federal government. As I said, I am well aware that the situation in this country regarding volumes of nuclear waste is in a completely different category from France and Finland, at least whilst we have no nuclear power generation in this country, but we could learn a lot from how it is done elsewhere.
The messages I want to convey are:
commit to long-term planning to getting it right from the beginning, and for many generations into the future;
In Finland and France, nothing appears to be hidden and the mistakes are admitted. The French officials were quite frank with us that they wasted a few years by not realising the importance of local communities and public sentiment. In Finland, far from hiding the fact that a final nuclear waste storage facility is being built not far from Pori, a town of 76 000 people, they get the community on board and arrange and allow bus tours to visit the site.
I feel we are being short-changed by our federal government in the way they are dealing with Australia’s nuclear waste disposal issues. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s legislation requires that, in relation to any facility licensing, the CEO must ‘take into account international best practice in relation to radioaction protection and nuclear safety’. I submit that this is not happening.
Short of flushing our waste out to sea, Australia appears to be rushing towards international worst practice. The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management recently submitted a report to the UK government. One of its key findings was that the radioactive waste is a social problem as much as a technical one. It is no different here, and the government would do well to heed that message. The Commonwealth government has already unilaterally decided that Australia will have a single nuclear waste disposal facility for Commonwealth waste and that it will be in the Northern Territory.
While I reaffirm my opposition to that decision, and will continue to oppose it, I am more deeply offended by the way in which the decision has been made and is being implemented. The process is deeply flawed. It leaves us exposed to the possibility that we end up with an inappropriate, ill-planned facility, not up to the long-term or final storage of the waste we may end up with, in the wrong location.
The Commonwealth government, in my view, needs to take a deep breath and step back; learn the lessons from other countries about how to get right the siting and operation of a nuclear waste facility, and decide whether it is for long-term storage or final disposal. We may not have much in the way of nuclear waste relative to other countries, but that is not reason enough to make us accept a flawed decision and be comfortable with it.
Australia needs a well-planned and publicly accepted final storage solution for its waste. This temporary tinkering is not it.
Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion relating to the statement.
Leave granted.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the statement be noted and that –
(1) The Assembly demand the Commonwealth government:
(d) commit to a clear, open and transparent scientific process for determining the best storage or disposal solution for nuclear waste; and
(e) respect the sovereignty of the Northern Territory and this parliament;
(2) The Assembly condemns the Commonwealth government for misleading the people of Australia about the type and source of nuclear waste to be returned to Australia.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, we were wondering what government was going to do, because it seemed like a quiet day at the office for this government. They have come up with this motion in order to get stuck into the politics of this issue. Whilst I understand that, you have now, by delivering this motion, answered the question.
I am a little disappointed. I listened in silence to the minister’s statement and I have a prepared response. It seems to me that Territorians are likely to read this Parliamentary Record, perhaps more than lots of other issues, so it is important that we, as their parliamentarians, provide both sides of the debate. We encourage our fellow Territorians to read it. I ask that the minister extend the same sort of courtesy to me in my response.
I note with interest that the Attorney-General said yesterday in relation to the gang laws that he thought - it was on Channel 9, I think – that if some people were being really critical and thought the laws were terrible, and another bunch of people thought that the laws were really good, then the bit in the middle probably means that it is, on balance, okay. I use that analogy, if you like, so that Territorians reading this Parliamentary Record can read the minister and the Labor Party’s position. Similarly, they can read our position. No doubt, the Independents will have something to say as well. With those comments, I will read from my prepared statement.
Before reading the statement, I should remind members of the motion that we agreed to with the government a year or so ago, I suppose, in this House that we, as Territorians - like Labor members - were unhappy with the way in which the Commonwealth went about saying that we would, as Territorians, have this facility. I remind members that this parliament has, as one, been of like mind - all of us have been of like mind in relation to the threshold issue; that is, the conduct of the Commonwealth leading up to the announcement.
However, that was necessary because both the Western Australia and South Australian governments should have, in our view, pushed much harder to hold up the original 1992 agreement instead of playing politics with this matter. It is inevitable, I suppose, that that happens, but it was terribly unfortunate, to say the least, that both the Western Australians and South Australians did not go harder in respect of the 1992 agreement. Unfortunately, in the Territory what we have seen pretty much since then is the Chief Minister playing politics with it.
The fact remains that it is somewhat disingenuous to make the statement that the Commonwealth has not provided details in respect of what is happening. The then minister, Brendan Nelson, wrote to the Chief Minister - I have a copy of that letter - on 15 July outlining what was happening in respect of the waste facility and, in doing so, set out a standing offer for a briefing on the issue. I am advised that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has had one briefing, and the minister who authored today’s statement has had none. Yet, we have the contents of the statement which Labor is asking Territorians to accept holus-bolus, it seems to me, without herself receiving a briefing - notwithstanding your trip overseas.
The fact remains that the site was identified in South Australia, and it was not the Commonwealth government’s first choice to come to the Territory. However, now that the Chief Minister has failed to even try to convince them to change their mind, she wants to continue to play politics with this issue. The process of finding the site started with a Labor federal government and was continued under a Coalition government. I say that again: the process of finding a site started with a Labor federal government and was continued under a Coalition government.
What was a bipartisan approach, free of politics, was destroyed by the South Australian Labor government. It seemed to us and, indeed, many other people, that if the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory carried any weight at all, she would have done her best to persuade Mike Rann to do the decent thing and have the site in South Australia. I cannot recall any public comments that our Chief Minister has made regarding the efforts, if any, she has made, or she did make, with Mike Rann. I am not even sure whether she picked up the phone. I believe that is a question that the average Territorian would like an answer to.
None of us liked the fact that we will have a facility forced upon us; however, it has happened and it is worth noting that, in the process, significant benefits were garnered for the Territory by the CLP federal members. It should also be remembered that the passing of the bill was also supported by Family First Senators and Australian Democrat Senators.
Some of the contents of the statement remind me of the way Labor has conducted itself on the McArthur River issue - trying on the one hand to placate left wingers and, then, on the other trying to sell themselves as friends of business. I am fairly certain that that is a difficult issue for members in the Labor Party and I can understand why.
However, we have now seen the Chief Minister softening her position and talking about needing to be a process based on science. I saw the interview, and I was not surprised, because we knew that she would soften her position. That was inevitable; not unlike her position with respect to uranium. We have seen a softening and you would like to think that the Chief Minister - notwithstanding the contents of the statement and previous utterances - and her colleagues now accept that the facility is going to be here; therefore, how then do we, as Territorians, maximise any benefits that that opportunity presents? In any event, it is interesting to see the Chief Minister changing some ground.
Some parts of the statement are, I believe, designed to engender fear, and continues to cast this Chief Minister and some of her colleagues in a pretty duplicitous way; that is, saying one thing and doing another. Territorians just want you to be honest and, no doubt, you have learned from the McArthur River experience - maybe not.
However, the minister went to some lengths to provide what she would call as much information as possible. So that those reading this Parliamentary Record can have the other side of the argument, I now present some following facts.
The plutonium, the reprocessing waste as a whole, is considered intermediate waste. However, if it was on its own it would be classified as a low-level waste. Reprocessing sees the uranium removed from the fuel rod and this leaves a small percentage of fission products. The radioactivity contained within this product is not as a result of the plutonium but, instead, is a result of the other tiny percentage content of the other fission waste products. The total volume of what is being returned in reprocessing waste is about 33 m, which is as a result of the fact that there is packaging and the waste is returned encased in cement or in a glass format. The actual volume of waste is, I am advised, less than 1 m.
It is also seriously disingenuous to make statements such as ‘Australia’s highest grade waste’ when the minister surely knows that the difference between an intermediate- and low-level waste facility and a high-level waste facility are enormous. The minister must also know that legislation was passed in the federal parliament which precludes the housing of high-level waste.
In 1992, the then federal Labor government commenced a national siting process to find a site for a repository for low-level radioactive waste. The siting process was commenced with the support of all state and territory governments. The siting program was continued by the Coalition upon gaining government in 1996. The result of the siting program was the selection of three sites in the central north of South Australia. Research conducted by DEST in South Australia showed that more people supported the concept of a national repository in South Australia than were opposed to it. Despite this, the South Australian Labor government, reneging on the original 1992 agreement, took legal action that, ultimately, prevented the Australian government from constructing the repository at the desired location.
I wonder whether Mike Rann was a Cabinet minister in the South Australian Labor government in 1992, and I think he was. Presumably, he was involved in the national siting process, and it was certainly dishonest of him to then turn around and play politics, especially with the knowledge he must have had. If my memory serves me correctly, I am pretty sure he was a Cabinet minister, but I stand to be corrected.
In any event, as a result of the intransigence of state and territory governments, in July 2004, the Prime Minister announced that a radioactive waste facility would be constructed on existing Commonwealth land either onshore or offshore for radioactive waste. That was the announcement that he made in 2004, and it was a result of the intransigence of state and territory governments.
Prior to the 2004 federal election, only offshore sites were being considered by DEST, the Department of Education, Science and Training. Senator Campbell’s comments were, therefore, correct at the time they were made. When it became clear that no offshore territories had both suitable elevation and infrastructure, the attention of DEST turned to onshore sites. As the majority of Commonwealth land is managed by the Department of Defence, potential sites were chosen with due consideration to Defence’s operational needs. It is for that reason that three sites in the Northern Territory were selected.
I refer to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act of 2005. It provides that any state or territory legislation purporting to prevent the Commonwealth constructing a radioactive facility in accordance with – I seem to have lost a page. Forgive me, Mr Acting Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: In any event, I am sure that the minister has an appreciation of the federal legislation.
I am sorry members on the other side are getting antsy, and I am sorry that reasoned and considered debates are so difficult for you to swallow. However, it being my democratic right, I am going to press on. If you do not like it, not to put too fine a point on it, you know where to go - and by that I mean into the lobby.
The Commonwealth has legislation. I suspect those who were mumbling before have not even looked at it. They should. Indeed, instead of just swallowing the minister’s or Chief Minister’s line, they should do their own independent research.
In terms of the type of waste to be managed at the facility, the Australian government has been completely open in stating the nature of the waste to be managed at the waste facility – this government will accuse them of many things but, indeed, they have always been very open about it. The letter to which I referred earlier of 15 July to the Chief Minister from the previous federal minister, Brendan Nelson, stated
- This material includes wastes arising from the overseas reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.
They have been up-front about that, regarding the type of facility.
The Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility will manage low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste generated by Commonwealth departments and agencies. Depending on the site chosen, low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste will be either disposed of in a near surface repository or stored in a purpose-built storage building or buildings. The current site characterisation studies will determine the suitability or otherwise of the three potential sites chosen to host the nuclear waste repository.
Should a repository be built and licensed, the final decision on what waste may be disposed of will be made by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency when licensing the facility. Any other waste will be stored.
This is a debate where I am sure members from Labor will give it their all. It is unfortunate that the government is playing politics with it. There is a federal election around the corner. I have a hunch that we will see many more statements like this, and we will see Territory ministers pretending they are behind Bomber Beazley and to be Commonwealth representatives until the federal election.
For my part, I hope the election comes sooner rather than later. If we have to wait for another 10 or 11 months seeing this government come in with federal issues and statements and doing their best to look and sound like budding federal politicians, then it will become very boring and will not directly serve the interests of Territorians.
It is somewhat ironic that, on the same day this statement is provided, there is a statement on chronic diseases. I would like to think even the most ignorant and stupid Labor member would acknowledge that there are benefits in nuclear medicine. I wonder whether, in the contribution to this debate, anyone on the Labor side will make that concession or acknowledgment - I think not.
The Northern Land Council has shown more leadership on this issue than the Chief Minister and her merry band of men and women. The Northern Land Council worked out fairly early on that it was inevitable we were going to have this repository, because the Labor states, about which I have spoken, did not do the right thing. The Northern Land Council looked at it and wanted to get involved. I am not sure that they necessarily warmly embrace uranium or nuclear energy, but they did see an opportunity and they wanted to get involved. That is unlike this government which, unfortunately, will continue to play politics with this issue up until the next election. I do not believe that is serving the interests of Territorians or indigenous Territorians, and the Northern Land Council has demonstrated more leadership than this Chief Minister.
Perhaps that is why the likes of the member for Millner issued his memo, and why the likes of the member for Macdonnell, apparently reportedly, leaked the memo to the National Indigenous Times, and why someone leaked some documents on indigenous issues to The Age newspaper a day or so ago. Maybe people see this Chief Minister failing on indigenous issues as clearly as we do.
I am obliged to look to the statement, which is difficult to consider, given that I have received it whilst I have been on my feet, therefore, it is necessary for me to read it so I can get through it. I see that the minister has demanded that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate a nuclear waste dump - there is that word again as opposed to repository, interestingly; confirm that the waste which Australia will receive from France includes – oh yes, right - (c) cease all action to establish a nuclear waste – well, how ridiculous is that; commit to a right, blah, blah, blah, and (e) blah, blah, blah.
Mr Acting Speaker, I will comment on this and, of course, I have not even had the benefit of speaking to my colleagues. However, I am going to go out on a limb on this one - no pun intended, member for Greatorex. I am going to say that this motion does not even deserve my time.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise members of the presence in the gallery of Parliament House tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Statement - National Radioactive Waste Facility in the Territory
Note Statement - National Radioactive Waste Facility in the Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, I certainly support my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, on her statement about the Commonwealth government’s proposal to build a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the minister, and I have spoken to her personally about this. The statement she made today is probably one of the best statements that I have heard in this House from a minister. The minister has personally undertaken research during her visit to France and Finland to look at the true story, the hidden story, behind the Commonwealth government’s proposal to foist a nuclear waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory in total disregard of an election commitment that the Commonwealth government made prior to the last federal election.
There really is an untold story, which has been told now because the minister has told it, of the devious way the Commonwealth government has sought to mislead Territorians, to lie to Territorians. Senator Ian Campbell, prior to the last election, made a categorical commitment and promise that a nuclear waste dump for Australia would not be built in the Northern Territory. Territorians were also misled about the type of nuclear waste that is to be dumped in the Northern Territory.
We heard from the minister in her statement that not only will the dump contain nuclear waste that is generated as part of day-to-day industrial processes in the Northern Territory through our medical system as well our industrial system, and reprocessed material from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney, but also this nuclear waste dump is going to contain nuclear waste that has been generated from countries overseas, including Russia - and not only being low- to medium-level nuclear waste, but high-level waste including plutonium.
This is not what the Commonwealth government has told the people of the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth government is treating the Territory like second-class citizens - I would say third-class citizens. It is absolutely reprehensible that the Commonwealth government has introduced legislation into the parliament in Canberra that overrides laws passed in this Assembly which do not provide Territorians with any judicial review in respect of administrative processes. It is a shame on the once proud Country Liberal Party that their members in the House of Representatives and in the Senate did not stand up for the Territory and oppose that legislation which overrides this House.
It has been a sad period for the body politic in the Northern Territory that we could not stand together in this House and have our representatives for the Territory in Canberra stand side by side and oppose legislation introduced into the federal parliament. That denies the right of this duly elected Assembly here to pass our own laws, even worse, denies Territorians and this Assembly the capacity for judicial review in regard to decisions made in Canberra that affect the Northern Territory. It is a blatant attack on the Territory’s Self-Government Act.
I am predicting that the CLP will be gone from the Northern Territory in 12 months time. The Liberal Party is going to come in here and take over. The once proud Country Liberal Party would have stood shoulder to shoulder with other representatives in Canberra and said, irregardless of what the policy issue is, for the federal parliament to pass laws that denies the rights of Territorians, through our own duly elected representatives, to make their own laws in the Territory and, even worse, not allow Territorians the right to judicial review that every other Australian takes for granted, is absolutely reprehensible.
For those members, David Tollner and Nigel Scullion, not to say boo in regard to this assault on the Territory is a desertion of the people of the Northern Territory. The likes of Paul Everingham, Marshall Perron, Steve Hatton, Daryl Manzie - whom I respect - and Ian Tuxworth, who was in here the other day, would be shaking their heads in disbelief that the current CLP would just allow Territorians to be run roughshod over by the Commonwealth.
That is in regard to what has happened. We have moved a motion, which is an opportunity for those opposite to speak up and show to Territorians - in this Assembly where they are elected by the people of the Northern Territory - that they support this motion and demand that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. If they are not prepared to stand up in here today and support the government in this call, then the opposition has an absolute responsibility to the people of the Northern Territory, if they are going to support the siting of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory that is not only going to contain low-level radioactive waste generated through medical and industrial processes in Australia, but it will also see us import high-level radioactive waste, including plutonium, from countries overseas.
It was announced by the Prime Minister and the Resources minister a couple of days ago that they believe there is going to be nuclear power generated in Australia in the next 10 years; therefore, we will also see waste from the nuclear power industry dumped here. If the opposition believes that type of industry is one we should be supporting in the Territory, then they have a responsibility to tell Territorians where they think this waste dump should go.
At the moment, we know the Commonwealth government is considering three sites, two in Central Australia, and one in the Katherine region. Members opposite have a responsibility to tell Territorians which of those three sites they support this nuclear waste dump being constructed in. We know people in Central Australia, and Alice Springs in particular, are vehemently against the siting of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. We have two members of the opposition who represent seats in Alice Springs, the members for Greatorex and Araluen. They have a responsibility to stand in this parliament today and support the government in this motion, rejecting the Commonwealth government imposing a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. I really hope they do that.
If they cannot see fit to do that, then they have a responsibility to tell their constituents, the people of Alice Springs, whether they support a nuclear waste dump being sited in Central Australia. If that is what they do, well, that is what they do. They are elected by the people of Central Australia; they have a responsibility to say what they support. If they do not support the nuclear waste dump being sited in Central Australia, then they must support it being sited in the Katherine region, because these are the three sites that are being considered by the Commonwealth government.
I urge members opposite to think very seriously about this statement and this motion, because it is a critical issue for the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth government has certainly misled Territorians; it has deceived Territorians. It has not told Territorians the truth about the nature and the type of waste to be dumped here in the Northern Territory, for the only reason - not the best science in Australia, but because, constitutionally, we are the easiest mark and the weakest link. The Commonwealth government really has done a huge disservice to the people of the Northern Territory. The government is not going to stand by and let Territorians be hoodwinked, misled, and lied to by the Commonwealth government in regard to what their intentions are for dumping this nuclear waste in the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the minister for the Environment and the member for Arafura, has investigated regarding the research that she has conducted, the people that she has spoken to - particularly in France, but also in Finland - about exactly what the contractual arrangement is between the Commonwealth of Australia and the French government. The legal uncertainties that belie the Australian waste that is currently stored in France, is a story that the Commonwealth government of Australia has not told the people of the Northern Territory, and it is absolutely outrageous.
I urge members opposite to think long and hard about supporting this motion. I encourage them to support this motion, because I can say to members opposite that, if they do not support this motion here today, the people of Alice Springs will hear about it long, loud and hard from the government. It will be in every letterbox in Central Australia and Alice Springs. It will be in people’s letterboxes over and over again saying how the members for Greatorex and Araluen support the Commonwealth government’s intention to dump high-level radioactive waste, including plutonium, and including from countries overseas, in the beautiful part of the world which is Central Australia.
Mr Acting Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and the motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, if the member for Wanguri accuses the federal government of lying, I suppose I can accuse this government of lying as well. This statement is pure fabrication - fear tried to be put through as if this was a genuine statement. The minister opened her comments with:
- Based on limited information from the Commonwealth, we found that the dump will be used to house Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste.
Emotional words.
Equally, I could say that the basement of the Royal Darwin Hospital houses the Northern Territory’s highest grade nuclear waste. Yet, not one member opposite is worried about that. That is the sort of intellectual dishonesty of this government, accusing anybody about this nuclear waste facility.
The nuclear waste facility has been on the books in the country since 1992. It was a project initiated by the then federal Labor government and agreed to by the then Labor Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Bob Collins, who became a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments. It was a project formulated with the agreement of all states and territories and the federal government of the day that they would undertake a study to identify the best locations in Australia for a nuclear waste facility. These governments, including the government of South Australia, all agreed on best practice, best research, that it was to be in the northern parts of South Australia. The current Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, was then a Cabinet minister in the South Australia Labor government in 1992. He was part of that decision, yet he had the temerity to bring through legislation in the South Australian parliament to obstruct the appropriate way of developing a nuclear waste facility in the northern part of South Australia.
Where else can the Commonwealth government look for land to develop the facility but elsewhere than South Australia? The fact that they have identified three locations in the Northern Territory is because of the land that the Commonwealth has in their possession. But do you know what? This Labor government, in the fear that it is trying to generate within people in the Territory, refuses to understand that even the Northern Land Council is more interested than they are in considering …
Mr Wood: They did not get a mention.
Dr LIM: … the value … No, they did not get - I pick up the interjection from the member for Nelson – the Northern Land Council did not even get a mention by this minister in her statement. The Northern Land Council has more vision and foresight to explore the benefits that this may potentially bring to the people that they represent.
The minister gets up and says: ‘I have done a great lot of research on this matter and so has the member for Wanguri’. Oh, well done, minister. You have done such a great lot of research. You went all the way to France and Finland to do that. She could not get enough energy to go all the way to Lucas Heights in her back door to have a look, but she could do that in France and Finland. Do you know what, minister? In the 24 hours you spent in the aircraft going from Australia to France and Finland and back you have been exposed to more radiation than you would get standing in the middle of a nuclear waste facility that is being proposed for this country.
That is what happened. You have been exposed to more radiation in your trip to France …
Ms Scrymgour: Run the spin for your …
Mr Wood: No, your spin is in your statement.
Ms Scrymgour: We know where your alliances lie.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: And that is where you have been solely dishonest about the whole …
Mr Wood: At least I had a Iook at Lucas Heights.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson and I have both visited Lucas Heights and discussed it with the scientists at ANSTO. We have seen for ourselves what a waste facility would be like and what is proposed for Australia - nothing as fearful as you have tried to generate in this debate. Then the minister spoke about COGEMA and what COGEMA has done. I put the question: does the French Supreme Court decision jeopardise contractual arrangements with COGEMA to process spent fuel from ANSTO? Let me give the answer, minister: your research is wrong.
Ms Scrymgour: I did. I put it in my speech.
Dr LIM: Your research is wrong. The answer is this: the decision of the French Supreme Court to uphold a previous judgment of the Cannes Court of Appeal on reprocessing of a shipment of high-class spent fuel would have no practical effect. The judgment confirms the earlier decision that in the absence of an authorisation to reprocess the storage of foreign spent fuel on French soil contravenes French law. This will have no impact on reprocessing HIFAR spent fuel in France as an authorisation to reprocess that fuel has been issued by the French regulator.
COGEMA began to reprocess the HIFAR spent fuel in June 2005 - there will be no further shipments of spent fuel from ANSTO to France until 2024 - and ANSTO still has firm contractual arrangements with COGEMA for reprocessing spent fuel from HIFAR and the OPAL reactor. There has been no change in French government policy concerning COGEMA’s reprocessing activities. In response to this court action, it is expected the necessary authorisations would be obtained to enable future shipments to take place.
That is the truth, minister. I suggest that you do your research properly and report to this parliament properly. Do not tell us things that are not true.
In case the minister is not certain about the answer that has been provided by COGEMA, I can give her some background. In 1999, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, signed a contract with COGEMA for the reprocessing of all non-US-origin spent fuel used in HIFAR at Lucas Heights. Four shipments of spent fuel were made in 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2004.
In March, I understand Greenpeace successfully obtained an injunction preventing the unloading of a spent fuel shipment. Greenpeace contended that French law prevented the long-term storage in France of overseas origin radioactive waste. As COGEMA intended to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel as a single batch, it had, at the time, obtained only an authorisation to store ANSTO’s spent fuel. An appeal court rescinded the injunction, allowing the shipment to be unloaded, but returned the case to the lower court for full resolution.
In February 2003, the lower court ruled that although COGEMA did not yet hold an authorisation to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel, the fuel could not be considered waste as it was merely destined for reprocessing. Greenpeace subsequently appealed this ruling. In April 2005, the appeal court ruled that as COGEMA did not have the necessary authorisation to reprocess ANSTO’s spent fuel, the fuel was being stored illegally. However, on 9 June, a COGEMA media release announced that the General Directorate of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection had issued the outstanding operational authorisation on 29 May 2005.
That is the truth of the matter. I suggest the minister be truthful in the information she wants to provide to Territorians. This is a federal issue that has been beaten up by this government to try to continue to produce negative impacts on the potential federal election in the near future.
The issue about the waste facility is that it is going to store low-level waste and to temporarily store medium-level waste. There is no intention of dealing with the waste, as the minister suggested in her statement, with final disposal of radioactive waste in Australia.
Mr Stirling: But it was all going to be low-level waste originally.
Dr LIM: No such thing ever. Even in the minister’s statement, when she went to France and Finland, there has been no decision made by those countries which have a greater nuclear industry. No decisions had been made about final disposal of any waste. Do not come in here and tell us about final disposal when, in fact, there is none.
Unless this government is honest, there will be no open debate in the Territory. All you are doing is causing an environment where no one is properly informed about what is happening. Let us put all the information out there. Let us stop politicising it. Let us stop taking political positions because you are philosophically opposed to the uranium and nuclear industries. Let us stop doing that and look more closely at the issue of providing good, honest information for Territorians. The scare tactic does not do you, as the government, any good.
The minister talked about the federal government taking the land away from them. You know, without a skerrick of doubt, that the federal government cannot just take land away from indigenous people - not land that they have already owned and have converted to inalienable ownership. There has to be just compensation for any acquisition of property rights. Why did the minister not explain clearly what it is about instead of giving half-truths that are planned to try to polarise people?
The CLP, on behalf of the Northern Territory, just like the government, said that they did not want to have a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. However, having said that, we also recognise that the decision has been made because of the South Australian legislative actions, and the cowardly actions of all the other states and territories not to pressure South Australia to accept a nuclear waste site. All Labor state and territory governments fail Australians in not pressuring South Australia to abide by the agreement made in the 1990s. You all failed Australians ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: All Labor governments in every state and territory should have pressured Mike Rann to not go through that legislative avenue because all it does is create …
Mr Stirling: You stand with Scullion in Alice Springs and tell them where it is going. That is all you have to do.
Dr LIM: You can blame the CLP if you like, but seriously, what you have done …
Mr Henderson: Scullion could have stopped the bill.
Dr LIM: The minister says in a statement, ‘we will not have any judicial review once the decision is made’. The Territory’s own legislation does exactly that. You tell people to fence their swimming pools and there is no judicial review. What is the difference? You do that. You cannot then tell the Commonwealth government ‘you cannot do that’. What is good for one has to be good for the other.
Mr Henderson: A poor apologist for the Country Liberal Party member.
Mr Stirling: Yes, a once proud Country Liberal Party that stood for the …
Dr LIM: And we are still proud. At least we can stand up and hold our heads up high. We can hold our heads up high and say we are at least intellectually honest and truthful to our beliefs. You have compromised your very core beliefs, promises that you have made with all your fellow Labor governments, and now you renege on everything, and then politicise it for your own ends.
What have you done to ensure that proper debate occurs in the Northern Territory? You have done nothing, absolutely nothing. At least I checked out Lucas Heights and studied it …
Ms Anderson: So did we.
Dr LIM: I pick up that interjection from the member for Macdonnell. ‘So did we’, she says. Having a look at Lucas Heights means walking through it, spending several hours studying it, looking at it for yourself - not standing outside the fence and saying: ‘Oh, we have visited Lucas Heights’. That is, again, intellectually dishonest.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex, can you pause for a moment. There is far too much interjection from members who do not have the floor.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, I believe that the decision is made, and we should now make the best of this - turn it to our advantage. That is what the Northern Land Council is doing.
Fine that you want to bury your head in the dirt and say: ‘I cannot see you so you cannot see me’. Well, your backside is still exposed; I tell you that. The reality is that we are talking about nuclear waste that has, at the moment, minimal impact on the environment - waste that is generated necessarily for many reasons, including industrial as well as medical reasons. We need that, therefore, we need to address that properly.
We know that there is technology available such as concrete and glass rock that will be able to encase much of the medium-level waste in safety …
Mr Kiely: What sort of waste is it?
Dr LIM: … to be stored in temporary bases until such time as technology is advanced enough to deal with that sort of waste ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Dr LIM: All the interjections that we get from people like the member for Sanderson is because they come from a position of no information. Go find out for yourselves! Expose yourself to the information. Do not hide behind the fact that you are ignorant and, therefore, do not know and can say the things you want to say …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! I believe referring to other members as ignorant is completely unsatisfactory in this House.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask that you direct your comments to me, please in future.
Mr KIELY: Speaking to point of order, I ask that the member for Greatorex withdraw that comment about ignorance.
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, we know …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, would you …
Dr LIM: Members can try to waste my time, to ensure that our views are not being heard …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson, and I will take this point of order.
Dr LIM: What was the point of order? That I said that members …
Mr KIELY: Standing Order 262, I think it is, where you are being offensive.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson. Member for Greatorex …
Dr LIM: My comment was that ...
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Would you like to withdraw that on your own volition?
Dr LIM: Mr Acting Speaker, let me speak to the point of order, if I may then - and I am wasting my time here. The point of order is that I said that people prefer to hide in their ignorance by not keeping themselves informed. That is not saying that the member is ignorant …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker! That is not the case at all.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Millner, please sit down; he is speaking to a point of order.
Dr LIM: All I was saying is that calling …
Mr MILLS: Can I interject with another point of order? I seek an extension for the member’s time so he can get out of this dreadful mess; so he can finish his comments. I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 so he can finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: Thank you very much, Mr Acting Speaker.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: You are on the point of order still.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, by saying that members continue to stay in ignorant bliss of information so that they can get up and speak …
Mr Bonson: That is not what you said. Do not change what the Parliamentary Record is going to show.
Dr LIM: … without being fully informed, is pretty silly. If members across the Chamber are offended by the fact that I believe they are being very ignorant by refusing to get information, then I will withdraw. Otherwise, what I am saying is fairly innocuous. Okay, I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker.
Let me get back to the point that people can pretend to be ignorant. If you do not know what you should know, you can speak about the issue without appearing to be saying falsehoods within parliament - that is what it is. I encourage members of government to visit Lucas Heights and see for yourself; explore for yourself, what issues there may be that now concern you. I say to you again that, in the three-hour flight that you would do between Alice Springs and Sydney, or three-and-a-half hour flight between Darwin and Sydney, you would be exposed to more radiation from the sun while you are contained within the fuselage of an aircraft than you would get standing smack in the middle of the storage shed where the low-level wastes are now being stored. You would get less radiation. So do not be fearful of something that you do not know. Go find out. Go find out for yourself.
Ms Lawrie: On the record supporting it.
Dr LIM: When? I support what is now reality. I say to you and to you all: even the Northern Land Council is prepared to explore what you members across the Chamber refuse to do continuously.
Ms Lawrie: What Territorians do not want.
Dr LIM: If you want to …
Mr Wood: Five thousand three hundred and forty - that is one-third of TIO.
Dr LIM: Picking up the interjection from the member for Nelson, fewer than 6000 people on a petition is not funded by the government …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Dr LIM: … about $70 per signature it was - is enough to convince the Northern Territory government that Territorians do not want a nuclear waste facility. The Chief Minister would have to take the petitions to Canberra to say: ‘Look, we do not want it’, then the nearly 6000 signatures we have for the parks handover and the 10 000 or 12 000 for the Palmerston night surgery should convince the government to do a backflip on both of them. But no, they will not, will they? They will not.
We know about the different types of waste that are going to come. Let me say, though, when I read through the minister’s statement and listened to her carefully today, all she has done is provide some half-baked information from France and Finland - information that is not contemporary and provided as half truths to generate more fear for people listening to what she has to say. Let me repeat: the waste facility in the Northern Territory, if it comes, will be for storage of low-level waste; waste such as is stored in the basement of the Royal Darwin Hospital ..
Ms Lawrie: You believe that, do you? They lied to us about it being here in the first place.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker? The minister is now interjecting and calling the Commonwealth liars.
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Dr LIM: The minister ought to withdraw.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: The Royal Darwin Hospital stores low-level waste, which is very much like the low-level waste that will be stored at a nuclear waste facility. That is what it is about. For the time being, intermediate-level waste will be stored for a future time when a decision will be made as to how to deal with that waste. That is the principle of what is going to happen. If government members refuse to understand that or accept that then there is nothing much more I can do.
Using the couple of minutes I have left, let us look at what is going to happen with the spent fuel that is produced by ANSTO. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition got to that stage of her information, but the waste returning from overseas reprocessed by ANSTO’s spent nuclear fuels is long-lived intermediate-level waste, not high-level waste. Nowhere in this debate from the Commonwealth government or from ANSTO has there been any advice that there will be high-level waste stored in this facility. Only the Labor Party and the members opposite continue to bring in this misinformation about high-level waste.
The International Atomic Energy Agency defines high-level radioactive waste as waste with a thermal power greater than 2 kW/m3. That waste is not created in Australia. We do not have any such material in Australia and are not likely to produce any of that in the foreseeable future. The spent fuel reprocessing waste does not exceed this threshold. This is a contractual obligation with the reprocessing companies. For operational considerations, ANSTO’s spent fuel is combined with spent fuel from other reprocessing customers prior to reprocessing. Obviously, that makes a lot of sense; you put it all together and deal with it in bulk. The waste returning to Australia in May, therefore, contains waste generated in other countries. However, the waste returning to Australia will have the same volume and level of radioactivity as though ANSTO’s spent fuel had been reprocessed on its own. No additional waste or waste of higher activity will be returned to Australia.
The plutonium, which is one of the products, will be immobilised with the rest of the reprocessing waste. Therefore, there is no risk of contamination from this waste. The waste arising from spent fuel being reprocessed in the United Kingdom is expected to return to Australia from about 2011.
The December 2005 court ruling against AREVA stated that AREVA’s storage of ANSTO’s spent fuel was illegal as AREVA had not held the necessary authorisations from the French nuclear regulator. I have said before that things have moved up from there and the appropriate authorisation has been provided. Therefore, the minister’s words have been misleading.
There is no danger to Australians, to Territorians, by having the proposed nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. As regards our federal members and their positions, remember that the Democrats and the Family First Senators voted for the bill. If Mr Beazley, the federal Leader of the Opposition, were asked privately how he felt about it, he would say: ‘Yes, we need to have one in Australia. We really do have to have one’. The reality is he cannot say that so he is using this Chamber to try to position the Labor Party. That is hypocritical - very hypocritical. It was a Labor Party federal government that started this project and identified the location. The current Labor Party’s federal leader feels the same way. Unfortunately, he cannot say that publicly. That is the problem. Therefore, they use these puppets to articulate on his behalf, and that is a real shame. We have taken the debate away from information and politicised it, creating a fear campaign.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, George Orwell once said:
- Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
That is what we have here today: a grand statement so antinuclear that it was, obviously, written by members of the Socialist Front for the Liberation of the Northern Territory to gain the support of the proletariat whose votes they lost yesterday with the McArthur River Mine approval.
Unfortunately, it is the Labor Party that has made this statement. If you read this, you have to wonder whether one of its main policies is the non-proliferation of science. Labor has no interest in science or in the national interest, although when the national leader spoke about changing the three mines policy, he said it was in the national interest.
Labor NT, of course, agreed with their leader, but when it comes to storage of our radioactive waste - that is, Australian radioactive waste which comes from the production of radioactive isotopes, so necessary in medicine and industry - it cries: ‘Not in my back yard’. Labor has affiliations in all the states who all suffer from a severe case of NIMBY. They all disapprove of the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and know if they can halt the storage facility, they may be able to stop the licensing of the reactor. I say: ‘Too late’. As you can see, once again working against the national interest.
The minister, as you can see from this statement, has travelled overseas, publicly funded, to investigate nuclear facilities, which is a very fine thing to do, but would you not think that if the minister was working in the national interest, she would first visit our own nuclear reactor? No one, except me and the member for Greatorex, has visited this facility. We had the farcical statement during the Senate committee inquiry into the issue of waste disposal by Senator Crossin that other members of parliament had visited Lucas Heights. Yes, two members of the government did, but only standing out the front protesting. They did not go in, and Senator Crossin was not exactly truthful on that issue. Of course, that was all done in the national interest – oh, I mean the Territory’s interest – oh, I mean the ALP’s interest. This whole debate has now become an excuse for antinuclear propaganda to be spewed out by this government under the guise of how offended we are because the Commonwealth has overridden our laws.
The Commonwealth has overridden our laws because we have a bunch of self-interested and parochial state and territory leaders who do not want to work in the national interest; it would not be to their political advantage. The reason we have three sites in the Territory is simply because the Commonwealth government has been forced into a situation where no states would cooperate with them. If they did cooperate with them, we would not have these three sites. They are being forced into a situation. If the Territory government supported Lucas Heights, it would find a site. If the South Australian government supported Lucas Heights, it would find a site. This is a political campaign by the Labor Party against the continuation of Lucas Heights. That is what it is about because, if they believed they were working in the national interest, one of those states would have agreed ...
Mr Warren interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Goyder is speaking out of his chair.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Goyder, you can only speak from your chair.
Mr WOOD: This statement gives the minister the chance to push out the same old rhetoric and propaganda and attempt to legitimise it by saying: ‘Well, I visited all these places and they do it this way’. The minister has interspersed this with the usual propaganda which you would expect from the non-scientific government when it suits them. They claimed they used science when they approved the McArthur River project but, when it comes this to issue, they have used political science, witchcraft and a trip overseas to push their arguments. They have not used science.
Why is it that this minister barely mentions that our radioactive waste comes from a nuclear reactor? Why does she not say that the amount of intermediate-level waste will be extremely small compared to the amounts of waste produced at nuclear power stations in France? The minister avoids the fact that the classification of our waste is a classification used in Australia for radioactive material from our nuclear reactor. If you look at the definitions that are provided – and here it is - intermediate-level waste requires shielding for personal protection but generates minimal heat. It can have long life, and it can have short life. That is the fact, and it is no secret. Then the minister tries to make more of this fact. Look at the third paragraph in the opening statement. The minister said:
- Based on limited information from the Commonwealth, we found out that the dump will be used to house Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste.
This sentence is meant to deceive the public, because that information is and has been freely available to the public via the website and publications, and if you went to the public meeting in Darwin.
Yes, it is the highest grade waste in Australia but it is classed as intermediate-level waste, long lived What the government is trying to do is deliberately put the fear of God into those who do not have a lot of knowledge on this issue.
If I had no more to say on the issue you would be hard to go past the word dump, or nuclear dump. I think it is mentioned - I do not know how many times – at least 14 times. This is Labor’s unscientific political clich it uses and then pretends that this is the real story about Australia’s nuclear waste. You try to infer to the public that our radioactive waste will somehow be just tipped in a hole and buried with no signs - just dumped. If you make it sound bad, do it, but do not forget why politicians use political language, as I stated from George Orwell at the beginning. There will be a radioactive waste storage facility. The Labor Party uses the word ‘dump’ all the time, except the funny thing is, the minister missed it in one part; she called it a waste storage facility. I was quite surprised. Her censors must have let it slip through.
The minister also said, when referring to material that has already been shipped to La Hague and has not been processed, that it will, in principle, have to be sent back to Australia. Again, scare tactics. The fact is that her statement is not true because all the material has already been processed. The minister is also, therefore, out of date when she said that several scenarios need to be evaluated. When you read the minister’s statement, she puts down scenarios one and two. Already No 2 is out of date. Therefore, this is an out-of-date statement.
I believe the people of the Northern Territory would like to hear from someone else who is not from the enclosed society on the fifth floor. Let me read a statement by Dr John Loy, the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection Agency, from a media release headed ‘Nuclear Safety Regulator Licences Operation of OPAL Research Reactor’. Let us hear from the scientist:
- ‘As required by the act, I took into account international best-practice in radiation protection and nuclear safety in relation to the operation of a research reactor and other matters prescribed in the legislation in making my decision. My assessment took account of detailed reviews by ARPANSA staff developed over many months of examination, public submissions by community and other groups, reports from two independent people who took part with me in an open public forum, reports from the Nuclear Safety Committee and two international peer reviews. My reasons for decisions are contained in a statement I am releasing today’.
Dr Loy said: ‘Two areas of major concern in public submissions were the management and disposal of spent reactor fuel and other radioactive waste; and the physical security and emergency arrangements’.
‘I have previously stated that at the time of making this decision I needed to be convinced that arrangements for dealing with the spent fuel were firm and there had been sufficient progress with the development proposals for long-term storage for intermediate level waste, including the waste arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel’.
‘I am satisfied that ANSTO has firm arrangements with the United States for the return of OPAL spent fuel to that country for storage and ultimate disposal. This arrangement applies for the 10 years until May 2016, pending development of a research reactor fuel that is more able to be reprocessed than the current uranium-silicide fuel. It also has arrangements with COGEMA of France for the reprocessing of spent fuel, including for its present type of fuel, and the return of a vitrified waste product to Australia’.
‘With regard to the development of a long-term store for intermediate level waste, I also took into account that Australian government has committed itself to the development of a Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Facility (CRWMF) in the Northern Territory at one of the three defence sites or a site to be nominated by the Chief Minister or Aboriginal land council. The government has provided funding for the development of the project. It is also proposed and the parliament has passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Management Act 2005 that addresses any legal obstacles to a selection of the site for the facility. I accept this as a major political commitment by the government and that shows acceptable progress with these arrangements, recognising this facility will still require consideration of application for a licence by the CEO of ARPANSA’.
‘ANSTO has also been developing its management of radioactive waste at Lucas Heights with plans for supercompaction of low level waste’.
‘In fact, Australia’s planning and arrangements for dealing with waste and spent fuel from its research reactors are in advance of other countries using only research rectors. Our radioactive waste and spent fuel management is consistent with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management, and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management has been the subject of review in the context of our international Convention’.
That comes from the scientist, a person who knows what he is talking about.
What is missing in the minister’s statement is that we will be getting our fuel reprocessed in the United States. How come that did not turn up in the statement? This is a statement from the people who know. It is funny that those sorts of details are forgotten. The minister also goes on with propaganda that would make Kim Il-sung blush. The minister says that one of the main components to be returned to Australia is vitrified fission products, and then goes on to say this is high-level waste. Wrong! It is intermediate-level waste that produces minimal heat ...
Mr Kiely: Wrong, it is …
Mr WOOD: Go and talk to the people at Lucas Heights!
Mr Kiely: Go and talk to the Americans. They have a damn sight more of it than us.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, you can talk. The definition is there, no matter what you say, and that is the type of waste that will be returned.
Mr Kiely: I have my definition too.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: That is the scientific definition. The minister tries to imply by the words that we will have a neat package of plutonium marked ‘Australia’. This facility will not simply be a waste dump, she said, it will also be a plutonium dump. Again, the fifth floor propaganda machine puts on its ‘no nuclear’ television glasses and deliberately avoids the truth. Yes, a few grams of plutonium along with some other material will be infused into a glass log. Anyone who went to the Darwin meetings would have seen what they were talking about; they would have understood what the glass log was. It can be easily monitored because it is accessible and in a solid form. Plutonium along with radiation material is bound up in this log and is safe to store in that process. Of course, you would not want to mention that.
The government has never said it will not store intermediate low-level waste on this site. It has said the majority of the waste will be low level and there will be a small amount coming from France over the years. I think the whole thing is described as 400 m, which is 10 m that way, 4 m that way and 10 m high. That is a big thing to have to handle.
I pick up what the member for Greatorex said when the minister was talking about how we will receive other waste from other countries. You have to put that in the context of the reprocessing process to understand why. Of course, again they have twisted it to make a big deal out of it and to scare people by saying we are getting other peoples’ material. We are getting the same volume in material back and that is really what the issue is about.
The minister also ridiculed the method of transport of radioactive material when she used the words ‘stick it on a truck’, again using a deliberate word to make it sound like radioactive waste is being transported as you would transport ice cream. She does not tell anyone about how radioactive material is transported, nor does she mention the guidelines for the transport of such waste. You have these IAE safety standards series, regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material from the International Atomic Energy in Vienna. These are the ways we transport our radioactive material. They are not just stuck on a truck. Again, this is all about trying to turn it all around and list the whole thing as bad.
She does not mention that the radioactive material is flown to Darwin once a week on a passenger plane for the benefit of Territorians. That material comes from Lucas Heights. The minister says we were the laughing stock of the world, but this speech will make her the laughing stock of the scientific community. After the McArthur River episode, she tried to do her best to cuddle up to the extreme greens and there is more propaganda. The federal government is thinking of nuclear power, therefore, according to the party apparatchik, they believe that means we will get the waste from a nuclear power plant in this particular radioactive waste facility. What a load of twaddle! We know that you cannot store high-level waste in this kind of facility. It is not built for it. This is not about when you were dreaming, because you cannot put it in that …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You see, they show their ignorance of the facts about storage of high-level waste. High-level waste is stored deep in solid rock material, in forms like synroc. Intermediate-level waste can be stored in a glass log.
Again, this is not about science. This is purely about politics, having a go at the federal government and not finding a solution. If the Labor states and the territories had worked together, if they really believed that it should go in a place in Australia, they would have found it. If they really supported Lucas Heights, they would have got together with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth did work through this process and, in fact, it was initiated by the Labor Party. They did work through this process, got to Woomera - and who threw it out? The Labor Premier who supports the three mine policy - no sorry, who supports the change in the three mines policy.
The minister knows that there will be a different facility. That kind of truth is not the sort of truth you want to hand out to people, because you are trying to knock this whole issue.
I find this whole statement unscientific and deceitful. The minister has not only forgotten her science, she has conveniently forgotten to speak about the three mines policy. When we look at the three mines policy, government is saying: ‘No, we are going to get rid of the three mines policy. It is okay to export uranium overseas, we just turn our backs on what is going to happen to that uranium when it is going to be stored, that is their problem. That is okay, but we are not going to store any nuclear waste in our part of the world’.
To me, it is hypocritical. I know their friends at the Environment Centre put out a media release saying exactly that. They just thought the whole thing was hypocritical. On one hand, you are saying no waste here and, on the other hand, you are quite happy to send more uranium overseas which will have to be stored. You are happy for those people to store it, but you are not happy for it to be stored in Australia.
No word about the Northern Land Council. Whether you like it or not, the Northern Land Council has supported the idea of having a nuclear waste facility. There is not a mention of that in this statement. Why? That would not help the cause.
Again, use of the word ‘dump’. I was very pleased to see the ABC started to move away from the word ‘dump’. I could not believe it. I thought: ‘Gee! Sometimes making a bit of noise does make a difference’. They are using the word ‘facility’ most of the time now, and that is great.
One of the key factors that shows the hypocrisy of this debate is that not one member from the Labor Party has gone to Lucas Heights. Here is our home-grown nuclear reactor, and a brand new OPAL Reactor being built now; a research facility that people seem to forget is extremely important for the benefit of Australia. I will read from ANSTO’s book:
- ANSTO produces radiopharmaceuticals to help in the diagnosis and treatment of a range of serious illnesses. We also solve a wide range of industrial and environmental problems. Our ability to deliver these solutions is made easier by our international reputation for undertaking outstanding innovative scientific research.
In the international area, we contribute to regional and global initiatives that will make the world a safer place in which to live ...
They go on about looking at pollution, counter-terrorism and a whole range of other things. People should take the time to go look at Lucas Heights, take the tour, come back and, if you still do not agree that it should exist, I will accept that. If you are going to say you have been to Lucas Heights but you have only been to the suburb, that is being deceptive. When people say they are going to Lucas Heights, they are going to the nuclear reactor facility, the research station. That was deceiving and that was meant to deceive the public. That should be highlighted because it goes to show that this process is so political.
I do not support the Territory government’s laws being overridden. I have said that before. I do not particularly say the three sites are the best sites in the world, either, but the reality is that I support the idea that we should have a radioactive waste facility because I believe it is good for the nation as a whole. I am an Australian first and a Territorian second. Those boundaries do not mean a thing to me if we do something for the benefit of the country.
If six states cannot get together and find a way of storing the facility, I say the Commonwealth does not have any other option. What other option did it have? I do not like it overriding our laws but if, by supporting a radioactive waste facility I am supporting a facility that will save lives, help industry, improve ways we check on pollution and help counter-terrorism methods, that is worth supporting. I do not have a problem saying it is a good thing for the country. If only all state and territory Labor leaders would get off their political backsides and find a solution, we would not be in this great big mess we are in today.
Mr Acting Speaker, this motion is purely bumf. Let us do some real things. Labor should get together and go down and see John Howard and fix it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, we have heard the Liberal Party version for why we should have the dump in the Territory. We have heard the National Party version for why we should have the dump in the Territory. What we have not heard is the Territory’s version of why we should not have the dump in the Territory.
These people over here are not representing their constituents. Let us see the members for Greatorex or Nelson say: ‘I will have the dump in my electorate in the best interests of the country’. Let us hear them actually say it. Let us see whether they have the guts to say that. They tell people, ‘I have been to Lucas Heights’. We are not here debating whether we should have the nuclear reactor. We are debating whether we should have the nuclear waste depository in the Territory. I have not been to Lucas Heights and have no need to go to Lucas Heights. I know what a nuclear reactor looks like; I have enough pictures on my desk to tell me what nuclear reactors look like.
I will tell you where I have been: to Harts Range and Mt Everard. I have been to two spots in the Territory where they are talking about putting this dump. I will tell you what they are: they are little spots on the end of a bitumen road in the middle of nowhere, or so they would say. Actually, they are just up from Alice Springs, just down the road from Alcoota, just down the road from Yuendumu. They are in population centres. But not to Canberra, they are not - and certainly not for the member for Greatorex or the member for Nelson, who seem to think we can stick it up the Stuart Highway and everything is hunky-dory. Well, there are people living there who have commitments to a good lifestyle, and who do not want nuclear dumps in their back yard. I stand by that. I do not see why we should have to put up with having this forced on us.
On 30 September 2004, just before the federal election, Senator Ian Campbell did say, and I am quoting from the minister’s speech earlier on, that
- … the Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland. So we can be quite categorical about that because the Northern Territory is on the mainland … so the Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute categorical assurance.
Back in September 2004, why wouldn’t we accept that? I was a bit concerned about Mr Tollner, the MHR for Solomon’s comments about having a nuclear dump in the Territory, but I took the federal minister at his word because I am sure that he has a lot more sense than our MHR for Solomon. I took him at his word, and why not? When you look at the site selection study released in 1997 about what sites should be used for a national nuclear waste repository, there was Billa Kalina in South Australia; Bloods Range in the Northern Territory; Everard in South Australia; Olary in South Australia/New South Wales; Tanami in the Northern Territory; Jackson in Western Australia; Maralinga and Mt Isa – and they were all knocked out.
For one reason or another, the sites in the Territory worked out. However, where are the other three sites – Fishers Ridge, Mt Everett, Harts Range - in this document? They are nowhere to be seen. They just were not on the radar. As we should, and did, we took the federal minister at his word. Then, a few months later, lo and behold, they bring a bill into parliament, saying: ‘Hang on, the South Australians have turned their back, they have reneged on the deal, it is that scurvy South Australian Labor government which will not allow us to have a consolidated Commonwealth dump. It is their fault. Now we are going to have to put it on to some Commonwealth land somewhere because South Australia has reneged on the deal, and it is all the Labor states’ fault because they will not pressure the South Australian government into having that dump’.
Well, that is not quite the story. The story is that the South Australian dump was for low-level waste. It was not meant for intermediate or higher. What was also not mentioned by the CLP, by the people who want this nuclear dump in the Territory, is that it was going to be in the path of the rocket range. The Department of Defence did not want an intermediate nuclear waste repository where it might just happen to drop a missile on the top of it. I am for the Department of Defence. It makes a whole lot of sense. Get that story out, member for Greatorex. Take that into the equation when you talk about South Australia. It was the Department of Defence, a federal agency, which was the biggest proponent of not putting a dump there. It was not the South Australian government; they went along with the federal recommendation.
The Commonwealth, in its wisdom, said: ‘Righto, we have to select a Commonwealth site, a Defence establishment’. Well, let me name you some. There is Holdsworthy. There is Watsonia in Melbourne. There is Salisbury in South Australia. There is Robertson Barracks, member for Nelson. Any Commonwealth land is where they can put this. But what happened? They wanted to pick somewhere out of the sight of the eastern states, somewhere where the people thought it was a never never. I tell you what, it is Maralinga revisited, isn’t it? It is Maralinga revisited. All that is out there are some tribes that no one sees, no one knows about, no one cares about. Well, we in this Chamber, and in the Territory - and it should be across political lines - care about people. We have learned from Maralinga and we are not going to stand idly by and watch the mistakes of 50 years ago revisited upon people who are disempowered to do anything. They have me standing beside them. I have been to the communities around there.
I have been to those little Defence establishments. I ask: you have Jervis Bay, why is it not there? Why is it not at Holdsworthy? I will tell you why, because the political outcry from those people would be amazingly loud and strong.
I also draw parallels with the Commonwealth’s decision to put it down there from an experience in America. I go to a news article from CBS News. I believe it is 25 July 2004, and is about Yucca Mountain. I will talk about Yucca Mountain a little later.
Nevada, about 100 miles north of Las Vegas, is another small, quaint desert town. The US government has huge issues with their nuclear munitions dumps, with having to get rid of all the old stuff they have and store it. They decided to look around at some of their spots. They have some federal land in Nevada where they let off a few bombs, so I guess the land is pretty well no good for anything else, I will give them that. They decided that they would put it in this mountain; they would dig deep into the mountain and put this nuclear waste repository there for high-level waste. In January 2002, the Secretary of Energy made the decision. Lo and behold, the people in Nevada said: ‘No, we do not want it’, and they enacted laws to stop the transport, and even to cut off the water to Yucca Mountain. What did the United States federal government do? They overrode those laws! They came in, Bovver Boy Jack, straight over the top and said: ‘No, it is federal land, we are putting it there’.
In this news story of 25 July 2004, it says:
- A coalition of elected officials, environmentalists and businessmen is waging a guerrilla war to kill a project they believe has been shoved down their throats.
One of them is Brian Greenspun, the president and editor of The Las Vegas Sun: ‘Congress started looking around and said, ‘OK, let's bury it someplace.’ ‘OK, who has only two senators and only one representative, no political clout whatsoever? And who lives in a place that is perceived, at least, to be nothing but desert and wasteland?’ And they said, ‘Aha! Nevada’.
What could you put in there? The federal parliament was looking around and said: ‘Okay, let us bury it someplace. Who only has two Senators and one representative - no political clout whatsoever? And who lives in a place that is perceived, at least, to be nothing but desert and wasteland?’ They said: ‘Aha! The Northern Territory!’ How is that for similarities, Mr Acting Speaker?
That is what we are dealing with. That is the sort of mentality coming out of Canberra. That is the process that the CLP is backing, listening to their political masters there. Their elected members, Senator Scullion and the MHR for Solomon, Dave Tollner, both have let the federal government have this. They have virtually signed what I believe to be their own death warrants politically on this one. It is amazing that these political party members did not get onto them and say: ‘You could stop this’ – and they could have. They are quick to say the Democrats supported it, Family First supported it. All it took was Senator Scullion to cross the floor and it was dead in the water. Do not be fooled, members of the Assembly and Territorians, by that line. That is what could have occurred.
There are also other reasons why the Territory was selected. When I was looking through the document A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia – Site Selection Study Phase, I came across another interesting little piece of information. They were talking about site suitability. One of the sites that they considered was okay was ‘transport access is a limiting factor’. They go on to say: ‘Transport access is a limiting factor for the Bloods Range and Tanami regions’. That is what knocked out the Territory sites. Then they said: ‘All other regions have at least one major highway and a railway line passing through them’. What do we have near the sites in the Territory now? We have a major highway and a railway. They are the criteria: Commonwealth land, railway, major highway. That is it in a nutshell.
The so-called Independent - who was showing his National Party colleague’s flag today in nailing that flag to the mast - nailed it when he said: ‘We have a new reactor coming on; of course, we need a waste repository’. We do, because it could not have been signed off contractually. The replacement reactor at Lucas Heights cannot come about unless we have a waste repository working in Australia. That is why the push is on. It has nothing to do with taking back the waste from France or America, as they are saying. ANSTO is pushing: ‘We need a dump, we cannot get the new reactor without it’. That has been the driving force. So they looked around, did the Nevada experience: ‘Aha, two votes, three votes, let us get rid of that. It has a bitumen road, it has a railway, and it has no people anyone knows about’ - except for us here in the Territory, that is, and the poor people who live around it.
That is the reason why we are getting a nuclear dump in the Territory. Much to the shame that the members of the CLP cannot face up to it, will not have the guts and the gumption to face the electorate and say: ‘This is why we have it and we are supporting it’. They need to get out there, they need to get on the doors and they need to tell people in Greatorex, in Nelson, and in Blain: ‘We are doing this, we are rolling over, we are not looking after the interests of the Territory that we have been elected to do’.
Concerns were raised on this side of the House about the waste which we will receive from France, because we are not too sure that it is actually all our waste. What happens on reprocessing is - and this is from the discussion paper entitled Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle - that it all comes in, and any used fuel will contain some of the original U-235 as well as various plutonium isotopes which have been formed inside the reactor core, and the U-238. In total these account for some 96% of the original uranium and over half of the original energy content. Reprocessing undertaken in Europe separates this uranium and plutonium from the waste so that they can be recycled for re-use in a nuclear reactor as a mixed oxide fuel. This is part of the closed fuel cycle.
What happens is that we pick up our spent fuel rods, we ship them to France, and they go through this reprocessing process. Of course, what we get out of that is the plutonium. Members and Northern Territorians who read the Parliamentary Record should know that plutonium is a radioactive silvery metallic transuranic element produced artificially by neutron bombardment of uranium, having 15 isotopes with masses ranging from 232 to 246 and half lives from 20 minutes - I could manage that - to 76 million years. I am finding it very difficult to come to grips with that figure. It is a radiological poison, specifically absorbed by bone marrow and is used, especially the highly fissionable isotope Pu 239, as a reactor fuel and in nuclear weapons. Transuranic, of course, is material contaminated by man-made radioactive elements; transuranic means beyond uranium because the elements are heavier than uranium and they are the heaviest naturally occurring element.
What happens is that the spent fuel rods go to France, or they were going to France - I believe that process is going to stop. They go to France, they get all mixed up with the waste from Germany, Belgium, and France. It is a great big melting pot of nuclear waste, separated out, and then we get back what they reckon might be ours, but it is probably all mixed up. Well, that is just not on. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty talked about trading in waste. Well, we are trading in waste if we do that. We have to be sure that what we get back is what we sent over. We should not have to look after other countries’ waste, which is what is happening at this time.
The member for Nelson was big to go on about saying the waste dump that is proposed for the Territory is intermediate waste. ‘It is intermediate waste …’, he said, ‘… and all these horror stories that you lot are talking about is just propaganda’. Most members here and most of the public, I guess, would have heard of low-level waste, intermediate-level waste, which the member for Nelson spoke about it, but gee, he was pretty light on when he was talking about high-level waste.
The high-level waste arises from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. Oh, a nuclear reactor. Gee, that sounds like Lucas Heights, does it not? A nuclear reactor. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot so requires cooling and shielding. High-level waste accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of electricity generation. So you see, out of any nuclear reactor, you get high-level waste. We are talking about high-level waste getting used, going over for reprocessing and then coming back. The member for Nelson is saying that when it comes back it is intermediate, it does not matter, it is all being processed and sorted out. ‘Get to know the science’, he said, and that we are all Luddites over here. The member for Greatorex said that we did not have any research. I wish he had stuck his head over and looked at my desk. He would have seen a slight amount of research there.
This is from a booklet Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain put out by the American government:
- High-level radioactive waste that would be disposed of at the Yucca Mountain repository is radioactive waste containing by-products from past processing of spent nuclear fuel for defence needs or other radioactive material that requires permanent isolation.
- High-level radioactive waste resulting from defence programs is stored temporarily in underground tanks and vaults at government sites. High-level radioactive will be solidified in glass …
That is your vitrification.
- … (some waste has already been solidified), packaged in stainless steel canisters, and placed in shielded casks for transport to the repository for disposal.
It sounds to me like the same stuff we are talking about. The Americans are calling it high level. Our government is calling it intermediate. Someone has it wrong. The American government has been a nuclear power for 50 years; 40% of its fleet is nuclear. They have untold nuclear stations. They have more uranium and uranium waste than we can ever imagine. We have the reactor at Lucas Heights, which I understand is only a small reactor, an insignificant little reactor. I am inclined to go with the strength. In this case, I will back the Americans and their definition. That is probably closer than the Australian definition.
This Australian publication, Safe Storage of Radioactive Waste, by the National Store Project Methods for Choosing the Right Site – and they accuse us of double speak - is all about the HIFAR nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, proposed for there:
- Spent fuel from HIFAR and the replacement research reactor will not be stored in the national store. The spent fuel has been, and will continue to be, stored temporarily on-site at ANSTO then sent overseas for processing and conditioning. Waste from the processing of HIFAR spent fuel …
We have heard about what the Americans say about the processing of spent fuel into vitrification:
Waste from the processing of HIFAR spent fuel will be returned to Australia conditioned in concrete or vitrified (glass) matrix or as compacted waste in purpose-designed transport and storage containers. Waste from the processing of replacement research reactor fuel will be returned in purpose-designed transport and storage containers conditioned as vitrified (glass) residues and compacted waste.
Well, there you go! Two publications, one Australian, one American. I am happy to table them. There are your two definitions. You pick which one. I would rather err on the side of the American version, and that has nothing to do with …
Dr Lim interjecting
Mr KIELY: Well, member for Greatorex, come and have a look at them. You are over there parroting on about no research done on this side. I have offered you two definitions, two explanations for what vitrified waste is. You make your choice. I know which one I am going for, and I know which one Territorians will go for, and that is this one: the American one. What do they have to carry on about? The Australian government has more to lose on this than the Americans. Their publication dealing with Yucca Mountain is there.
I seek leave to table these documents. They are important documents. They clearly show the two definitions. Let the public decide. I am comfortable with my interpretation of what is high level and I certainly do not subscribe to the Country Liberal Party’s version of events. It is a shame that they are going to go with that version just for political ends to suit their masters in Canberra. I am very disappointed, and I am sure that the electorate is very disappointed and saddened.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I still have more to say and when the time comes, I would appreciate …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, if I can just interrupt you. Is leave granted for the tabling of those documents?
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister also called to cease all action to establish a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory while they are considering our nuclear future. I have a few theories on our nuclear future.
Mr Mills: Okay, tell us.
Mr KIELY: Yes. I tell you what: they are not too bad. First off, I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles, I would have bet the House that no way known were we going to have a nuclear reactor in Australia. Cut and dried. For all the talk that is going on …
Dr Lim: We have a nuclear reactor in Australia already!
Mr KIELY: For power generation, member for Greatorex; I should qualify it, for power generation. My reasoning behind it was because we have huge coal reserves, we have huge cash reserves. We have coal reserves to provide enough energy for us for 200 or 300 years and we have the networks. We have the whole lot, it is all there.
Look at the power supply in the Hunter Valley, at the coal lobby over in Western Australia, down in Yallourn, Victoria - the infrastructures are there, the gas. It just did not make any sense for us. I thought: ‘Well, here we go, no way known, with the infrastructure that is involved, that this is a strong voice and we will have an impact on Canberra’. However, when I was in the United States talking to some people about nuclear reactors, carbon credits, pollution and global warming, there is a strange and wondrous thing happening over there: about 20% of electricity in the United States is generated by nuclear; 50% is coal generated power stations. The move is on in the United States now for building nuclear reactors. What happens, I believe, is that the power stations and utilities - and they are privately owned - get carbon credits …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KIELY: There is a whole market on carbon credits building up around the place, and the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange is a world leader in it. What happens, of course, is that these utilities, rather than putting the money into looking for ways to trap all the greenhouse emissions coming out of the coal stacks, can build nuclear power stations and generate more power. Instead of the emissions coming out of, say, a 1000 mW power station over here, they build the nuclear power station which shows very minuscule greenhouse gas emissions and they get credits. They are no longer doing 1000 mW over here, they are doing 2000 mW of power but the greenhouse gas, the carbon emission rate, has not significantly risen so they get carbon trading - they get credits. These credits are all set against the coal-fired plants - and there you go - they do not have to spend money on trapping those greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired stations. When you have a look at the special provisions that are in the American legislation for the building of nuclear and the subsidies that go with it, it is a very attractive offer indeed.
What made me change my mind about whether we would get a nuclear power station in Australia is, of course, the same thing. These carbon credits are globally traded, so why would the company not come into Australia and say: ‘Right, let us get all the tax breaks, let us get all the subsidies’? - and they will – ‘Let us build you a new nuclear power station down here and then start trading in carbon credits’. What we run the chance of seeing is a rise of nuclear power stations without the subsequent addressing of the pollution and the greenhouse gas emissions from our existing coal-fired power stations, where the money would probably be better spent in the long term, at least in Australia’s national interests.
Australia’s national interests over there is something that needs a serious look at. We also talk about this being a kite flying exercise: ‘Oh well, we will go for an enrichment plant, let us just build a nuclear enrichment plant’. With the non-proliferation treaties around the world that we signed off on - and there is a whole range of nuclear treaties - the crux is that you cannot trade in waste. You cannot trade in nuclear waste. So, I put it as food for thought to the Assembly: what happens then if we enrich the uranium, turn it into nuclear fuel, and then we lease it to power stations - to the user in Germany, in England, or in America - we lease the fuel? It then is our responsibility, and back comes the waste and we have it all. Therefore, we have this added value. I am all for adding value to our mineral body and our commodities. That is fair enough. However, I do not think this is quite the right spirit it should be done in. However, that would get over the part of our trading in waste and make it quite feasible to have an enrichment plant.
When you look at nuclear waste repositories such as in New Mexico where the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is, and in Nevada at the Yucca Mountain project - and the minister spoke about her trip to Finland - they are huge costs. Indeed, the WIPP plant in New Mexico is some half-mile below the ground in permian salt rock deposits. They have gone down half a mile, dug out all the salt - and they reckon salt is a good area; this is where the Americans are storing all their nuclear waste from weapons, might I add - and are putting all the waste down there because salt will grow. Therefore, over the years, it will grow over the waste and so seal it forever, out of harm’s way.
The best practice is to bury this stuff as far away as you can get. This is high-level waste I am talking about, not intermediate or low level. This is the best way to handle it. As an aside, this waste is going to be around for 250 000 years. I do not know whether anyone can grasp that but, to give you a feeling, we are still uncovering stuff from the Egyptian era 4000 years ago. Lost civilisations have been emerging over the last 100 years, things we never knew about from only 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago. For me, I cannot imagine what it would be like at 250 000. Our civilisation will come and go, and others will be around, and the whole topography will change and things will move on.
They have all sorts of warnings around the WIPP place. They have built a large earthen hill and they have perimeter monuments. They have ground monuments 25 feet high standing on two perimeters of the WIPP site. The boundary of the four square mile controlled area, and just inside the berms surrounding the repository’s 120 acre footprint. Each monument will be made of 20 tonnes of solid material, so they are doing that to let people know.
They have an information centre which is a 40 feet by 32 feet by 15 feet high surface structure which sits in the repository footprint. It has a granite interior and exterior walls will be engraved with many messages, some in words and some in pictures. It is like 2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t it? It is amazing stuff! They have buried markers, randomly, two to six feet deep throughout the repository footprint. I am saying all this because this is the sort of work that has to go on for a safe repository.
Then, look at Yucca Mountain, which is not yet fully approved; they have just been going through all the tests. This is going into the mountain and is huge. The footprint is all inside the mountain. Right down the bottom they have been doing water tests because these storage facilities cannot be anywhere near water. You cannot take a chance on the water table. When you are talking 250 000 years, you just do not know about the environment. That is the sort of material we are playing with here.
The Americans have something like 70 000 tonnes of material they have to handle. Think of it like this: think of our small jurisdiction and our government. We emulate and carry out the same tasks as New South Wales does, or the State of Carolina - our functions are the same, on a smaller scale, but just as important. So, too, with nuclear waste, and our nuclear waste will be on a far smaller scale than the Americans have. However, whether it is one ounce or one tonne, it is still going to be hanging around for 250 000 years.
Do not get caught up on: ‘Oh, it is only 2 m3, it is only 3 m3’. Talk about the life of that particular pile of waste and that is what it is. And that does not change, Mr Acting Speaker.
When we talk about an open and transparent scientific process to determine the best storage or disposal solution for nuclear waste, we are talking about high-level nuclear waste. Make no mistake. We are talking about high-level nuclear waste, particularly if we go to nuclear enrichment or to nuclear power plants - particularly if we start leasing an value added product and bringing it back. We cannot bring back other people’s waste at this stage because of all the treaties. However, it is on the horizon if we do go that way.
All these repositories have taken something like 30 years to get up to this stage. What are we talking about now? We are talking now and we disputing the level – well, I am disputing the classification of the waste going in - but we are talking about a cement bunker just down the road from Alcoota, just off the Stuart Highway or up at Katherine. We are talking about building a cement bunker to store our waste ...
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Mr KIELY: Has it?
Mr STIRLING: I move an extension of time …
Dr Lim: No, he has already had one extension. Come on!
Mr STIRLING: … for the member to complete his remarks.
Dr Lim: No, he has had one extension. The standing order says no.
Mr Mills: You are gagging him, you meanie.
Mr KIELY: Yes, you are gagging me. are you?
Dr Lim: No. The standing orders say no.
Mr KIELY: Member for Greatorex, perhaps if you had addressed all these issues and you are the one who is urging me on – show us your data, come on, do your study.
Dr Lim: No. The standing order says no. He has had his time. He has had his extension.
Mr KIELY: I have done my study, member for Greatorex. I am representing my constituents.
Dr Lim: He has had his extension.
Mr KIELY: You should represent yours.
Dr Lim: He has had his extension.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, member for Sanderson. Thank you.
______________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Mr STIRLING: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the member for Sanderson to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
______________
Dr Lim: No, hang on. I believe that is a dissenting voice. You do not have that.
Mr Stirling: I moved a suspension of standing orders.
Mr KIELY: I will continue then. I am just amazed that the member for Greatorex should want to gag me on this. I hope that when people read this, they – you know, he has been calling for members on this side to show proof. Show us your proof. What do you have? I have given him proof. I have shown him and now he wants to gag me. Well, it will not work and I hope that members in his electorate are listening and watching his actions in regard to this, because they are abysmal. He is not standing up for the Territory. It is not in the national interest. It is the Liberal Party and it is ANSTO and he is in thrall to them, and his National party mate who comes in here cloaked as an Independent. Well, it is just not on. He is just going to have to listen and put up with it.
This is what we are looking down the barrel of, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I want all Territorians to know that if they sit back and say it is all on the science - well, it is not all on the science, it is political. The federal government is not telling us the truth. The basis of wanting a repository in the Northern Territory is based on purely political expediency and a need to get ANSTO their second reactor to get the exchange going. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater human need.
There has been this furphy getting around from the member for Solomon, and he is been parroted by all the other members of the CLP, that you are just not interested in helping your fellow Australians out: ‘All those people who need their nuclear medicine, and we are going to get you an oncology unit. Sign up for this nuclear waste dump because you use the nuclear medicines from Lucas Heights, therefore, you have a moral obligation to take it’. The new generation of PET scanners and all those sorts of things use cyclotrons, and the cyclotrons make their own isotopes on-site because the half life is so quick. So we …
Dr Lim: Cyclotron isotopes are not used for therapy, only for diagnostics. You do not know that, do you? You do not know that, do you? You do not know that. Cyclotrons are only good for diagnostic material, not for therapeutic material.
Mr KIELY: … will not be getting any of the product of Lucas Heights. We will not be getting any – you have had your go, member for Greatorex. Why didn’t you tell them that? You are a medical practitioner. Why didn’t you? Yes, the member for Greatorex is quick to want to be called doctor. He is not quick to tell people the truth, though
It is cyclotron: we will not be using any of the material from Lucas Heights. To come in here and tell Territorians that we have a moral obligation to take the waste created by Lucas Heights is utter rubbish. You should stand condemned for that, member for Greatorex - doctor. Doctor! I have had my say on that one.
Mr Acting Speaker, we have asked the Commonwealth government to respect sovereignty of the Northern Territory and this parliament. I am back on the committee that is looking after statehood. Things have not moved our way for six to eight years. With the intransigence of the federal government on this line, we are putting up a really hard fight to try to get statehood in this particular political climate. I am terribly saddened that that should be the case.
The CLP is signed up to the federal Liberal Party. They do not have their Territory credentials any more. Not only has the CLP signed away the Territory and is toeing the Canberra Liberal/National Party line on the repository, they are also signalling that we do not need statehood, we do not want statehood, we do not deserve statehood in the Territory; we are happy to take the crumbs and the offerings from Canberra. On two counts the CLP stands condemned. They stand condemned for selling out the Territory on this nuclear waste dump and they stand condemned for selling out the Territory on statehood. I hope that one gets back to your electorate too, Mr 3%, because that is all you are there by, member for Greatorex. I will guarantee that it will not be that much next time ...
Dr Lim: I am here and she is not here.
Mr KIELY: Well, you had better get doorknocking and you had better be telling them the truth.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the parliament for listening to me. I hope the member for Greatorex has learned a few things. This is the second time the member for Greatorex has called out for information. Remember in the debate the other day when he said: ‘We have not heard about this, we have not heard about that’, on museums. He would not go out and do his own study, so we have had to force feed him. It is a bit like a budgie, isn’t it? You have to throw those worms down his throat, hope that he will swallow them and get bigger, fatter and better.
The minister said that the Assembly condemns the Commonwealth government for misleading the people of Australia about the type and source of nuclear waste to be returned to Australia. I have demonstrated quite clearly that they have misled us.
On a personal note, I condemn the CLP. How could four members possibly get it so wrong? You would think they would sit in the car and talk about it on the way in ...
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr KIELY: That is the once proud CLP – did the member for Greatorex just say: ‘I will have it in my back yard’? Is that right? ‘I will have it in my back yard’, member for Greatorex? Is this going to go in your back yard? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the people of Central Australia will never ever forgive you for it.
Mr McADAM (Central Australia): Mr Acting Speaker, clearly, the federal government is considering placing its nuclear waste dump not only in Central Australia, but has also identified a site astride the headwaters of Katherine and the Daly River in the Top End of the Northern Territory. On this occasion, I will leave that matter to be discussed at a future time. I am especially interested in the member for Katherine’s views on that.
I also congratulate the minister for her very comprehensive statement. I will quote from that speech.
- Based on limited information from the Commonwealth, we found out that the dump will be used to house Australia’s highest grade nuclear waste. This means that all nuclear waste produced by Commonwealth departments, agencies and statutory bodies, including the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, and any military ordnance, would be stored at this dump. We were told that from 2011, the nuclear dump would also house spent nuclear fuel rods returned under contractual arrangements with France and Scotland.
Let us be under no illusions about this waste. It is not the so-called hospital basement waste. It will consist of spent fuel rods that contain plutonium, the most dangerous of nuclear products.
Central Australia, including the Barkly, is a unique, beautiful yet vulnerable and precious part of Australia, and it is commonly called ‘desert’. My dictionary defines desert as ‘an uninhabited and uncultivated tract of country, desolate, barren, waterless and treeless’. Any fair-minded person would not see Central Australia as that. I prefer to use the more modern term ‘arid lands’. It more adequately describes a landscape that has low rainfall for most of the time, but not always. Arid lands have an incredibly diverse niche of communities, of extraordinary Australian fauna and flora. They are populated by peoples who know and love the arid lands, unique characters who wish to grow specialised, sustainable, environmentally non-threatening industries.
We are fortunate in this House to live in a time when the old thinking of Central Australia as a desert has been replaced by more scientific thought. Even more fortunate than that, we can see the efforts of progressive minded individuals, companies and communities who see their future inextricably bound up in the arid lands of Central Australia. These people have a vision for the place where they live, the place they call home. That vision is to take all that is best and beautiful about Central Australia, to nurture it, to care for it and to harvest its bounty. I am talking about many things: people working hard to make their own particular industries sustainable, successful and profitable, whilst maintaining the unique character of the arid lands of Central Australia.
I am talking about people like Lindsay Bookie, the new Chairman of the Central Land Council, who has begun an eco-cultural tourism project on his traditional lands, not far from one of the sites proposed for the nuclear waste dump at Harts Range. I am talking about progressive pastoralist companies like Kidmans and the Australian Agricultural Company which have a vision for growing clean and green beef on the grasslands of the Barkly Tablelands, not far from another of the proposed sites for a dump on Muckaty Station. I will go back to that a little later, particularly in reference to the comments by the member for Greatorex about the Northern Land Council.
I am also talking about horticulturalists who are making these arid lands bloom, the farms that specialise in grapes, vegetables and cut flowers, not far from another proposed site at Mt Everard. Of course, older Australian foods have been harvested on these arid lands for millennia. We are fortunate enough to see such bush foods at last making their make in the broad Australian and overseas markets. None of these people see Central Australia as a desert. They all see it as arid lands, capable of producing a lifestyle for millennia to come for them and their families.
Recently, I spoke at a rally in Alice Springs titled ‘We are not no one. This is not nowhere’. It was a gathering to remember the last time before this when a significant Australian politician thought of Central Australia as a desert, as uninhabited and uncultivated, as a desolate tract of country, barren, waterless and treeless. That politician was Bob Menzies who, without even consulting his Cabinet let alone the parliament of the day, allowed the British government to explode a number of nuclear devices at Maralinga in South Australia’s north. The Australian government, at that time, had no vision for the arid lands of Central Australia, no vision other than its unique character could be wiped away in a blinding flash or two. Moreover, the Australian government had little or no knowledge about the science of arid lands, the great potential for sustainability for people and industry.
Just last week in this House, we heard the member for Stuart make his maiden speech, and a wonderful speech it was too. In that speech, he spoke about his political role models, mainly from outside of politics. But, interestingly, he spoke about one Roger Vale, a conservative founding member of the Country Liberal Party, who we all know had his roots in Central Australia. Roger Vale was a unique Australian, a man who had a simple philosophy for Central Australia. That philosophy was that it was a good place to live, to grow up a family, and that it could sustain life as long as you looked after it. He, like the member for Stuart, was an integral part of one of Central Australia’s greatest sporting clubs, the Pioneers Football Club. Their record of winning premierships is an outstanding one, probably second to none in the history of our great national game. He set about winning premierships by getting people from all walks of life, from different races and different backgrounds, rich and poor, to work hard together for a common purpose.
I wonder what Roger Vale would think of the current small crop of Country Liberal Party politicians. Roger Vale always stood up for Central Australia; he was a proud Territorian. One of the reasons he helped found the CLP was, in his mind, to fend off what he considered the overbearing intrusion into Centralian life and communities of the power of a strong central government in Canberra. Today, we see the overbearing intrusion that Roger Vale feared most.
The Liberal/National Coalition is subjecting Centralians to its will, whether the people live, work and play there, like it or not, with the most draconian anti-democratic legislation in Australia’s history, without consultation with anyone who lives there. The Prime Minister is determined to subject the Territory to its will. What was the response of the Country Liberal Party’s heirs to Roger Vale’s political mantle? It was interesting that I heard some of the comments, particularly from the member for Greatorex, about the Northern Land Council as it relates to the Muckaty site, which is still under consideration to the best of my knowledge by the Australian government, aided and abetted by the Northern Land Council. It is important, member for Greatorex, that you understand precisely the process that has occurred in respect to that particular site put up by the Northern Land Council. It is also worth remembering that it was the Northern Land Council some years ago which worked with the traditional owners to secure that land so that they could have sustainable environments, their culture, their spiritual affiliations with that land intact. They were the ones who, all those years ago at the behest of the traditional owners, decided to go down that path.
Today we have a situation with the Northern Land Council – and, I suspect, with Senator Scullion - has put a position to the Commonwealth government that Muckaty may well be one of those sites. I just want to ask two things of the Northern Land Council. No 1 is: why are you not responding to the letters from the traditional owners who have written to officers of your organisation? Why have you not responded? The second point I want to say is this: the NLC is a very proud organisation and one that is respected and deserves respect. However, I get very concerned when the NLC surreptitiously embarks on a process that effectively sets out to undermine the status of traditional owners in that country - the same people who they stuck up for all those years ago in getting that land. Why is that they are now going out there and trying to build a case to discredit some of those traditional owners? Why is it that they are actually questioning if, indeed, they are traditional owners? If you have a look at the Muckaty land claim, you will very clearly see that those same people, all those years ago, who they supported, are the same people on the list today. I ask that question of NLC. Member for Greatorex, you talked about leadership, them having a vision. I suspect, in this particular case, their position is purely that of selfish interests.
I just want to go back to the CLP. I made a reference in respect to Roger Vale, a very proud man. You have to ask yourself: have the members for Araluen and Greatorex stood up to be counted in this particular matter? The answer is no. Did they argue with and lobby their federal conservative colleagues? The answer is no. Did they demand the right to be heard? The answer is no. Did they even get out and talk to those whose lives and livelihood would be most affected by the nuclear waste dump? The answer is no. What did they do? Very simply, they rolled over. It is important to understand, members for Greatorex and Araluen, that I was in Alice Springs about a month ago and had the opportunity to address a rally. Bear in mind to the best of my knowledge, there have been something like 6000 signatories to a petition opposing this particular …
Dr Lim: $70 each, that is what it is.
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon?
Dr Lim: $70 each. That is what it costs the government to get signatures.
Mr McADAM: Six thousand people have clearly voiced their concern about this proposal which you back. The other thing to understand is this: there are 72 businesses – and you may not consider that to be significant - in Alice Springs which have also voiced their concern, in writing, that Alice Springs should be a nuclear-free zone because, logically, the only place to bring this stuff is through Alice Springs via rail unless you know there are other options. I doubt it.
I have been very disappointed with Senator Scullion in this whole debate. He started out in a grand fashion. He started out sticking up for Territorians. You will remember his phone call to Brendan Nelson when he said: ‘Not on my watch, mate.’ What has he done? He has rolled over to the Liberal/National heavies in Canberra. So have the federal minister, the member for Solomon, and sadly, the members for Greatorex and Araluen. The senator went to water. The formerly proudly independent CLP became what it is today, a tiny rump that speaks for no one but themselves and stands up for a Prime Minister who would threaten the hopes and desires for a sustainable future for themselves and their families in Central Australia.
Let there be no illusions about the nuclear waste dump proposal. It threatens all that is good, and all that could be good about Central Australia, a place where hard work will pay off in a land that is rich in opportunity. There is something special about that country and its surrounds.
I want to make reference to my home town of Tennant Creek. It has also been a subject of the proposal put up by NLC and Nigel Scullion. I want to make it very clear that the views I get from people living in that particular community and those communities around the place, including the pastoral properties, is that they do not want it. They believe that it compromises not only their social wellbeing, but it also has great capacity to impact upon their economic opportunities.
It is also important to understand that visitors from all over the world come to Central Australia. They come for its unique features, its vast open star-filled skies, its huge, endless grassland vistas, its mighty rugged mountain ranges and, of course, the valleys and the watercourses that are right through our community. They also come to interact with people, its hard-working cattlemen and women, its craggy prospectors and, most importantly, the traditional owners who are associated with that part of the country.
An important point to make here is that much has been said and much has been written over the last few days regarding, particularly, the indigenous members on this side of the House for not having the guts to stand up, for not having the courage to say what they wish to say.
I make that reference directly to the NLC. My challenge is to the NLC: if you really believe that you have a charter to stick up for the rights of indigenous people, to be honest, open and fair, to ensure that the process is transparent, that you engage, that you consult with people, then I would respectfully suggest you do it. I believe you are talking at the moment, NLC, with a forked tongue.
There are other things that I wanted to say but I will leave it there. I have made my point: clearly, the people of Central Australia do not wish to have a nuclear waste dump in their area because the impact, both short- and long-term, will be catastrophic in the capacity of those communities to grow and provide real social and economic outcomes.
There is something that I have always said, and I made the point when it was first announced, particularly in relation to the Muckaty proposed waste site at a public meeting that was convened in Tennant Creek. At that time, I did not fully understand or appreciate – perhaps even now I do not – what it actually means. However, there is one basic human tenet, one basic human common decency that should prevail through this whole exercise: the Commonwealth government should engage with people on the ground, find out what their views are and then I do not care if you make a decision that is not favourable to the outcome that the community might want on the ground. At the very least, I ask them to engage, consult, and talk to people. I say to Nigel Scullion, the Senator for the Northern Territory, that you have a real opportunity to make your mark in the context of your place in the history of the Northern Territory. The only way that you can make your mark is by sticking up for the rights of Territorians and doing what you said you would do in the first place. If necessary, cross the floor and say no to this dump.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the statement on the real story of Australia’s nuclear waste by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage.
Like the member for Barkly, I want to talk about the Caterpillar Dreaming, the kangaroo, the army ants of Central Australia. I want to put on record what the indigenous and non-indigenous people tell me as the member for Macdonnell in Central Australia. They do not want the nuclear waste dump in Central Australia. I am disappointed not to hear the members for Araluen and Greatorex stand up for Central Australia in this House today.
As the member for Macdonnell and as a great advocate for Central Australia, I will be going back on Friday and spreading the message about the lack of support from the members for Araluen and Greatorex. People in Central Australia need to know that two of their local members do not support sticking up for Central Australia and saying no to the Commonwealth about the nuclear waste dump in such beautiful country as Central Australia.
As the member for Barkly said, we have the rivers, the mountains, and the flat land. If you go towards Mt Everard and talk to Gloria and Steven, they are very passionate about their country, about leaving a clean environment for their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren to enjoy. If you go across on the Eastern Plenty and talk to the people at Alcoota, they, too, want to live in a clean Territory. As the member for Sanderson said, you do not want to repeat history. These are people who need people like yourselves, who call yourselves politicians, to stand up for the rights of Central Australia and, for that matter, the whole of the Northern Territory.
We have such a beautiful country in the Northern Territory, and we have very different landscape coming from Central Australia through the Barkly region, to the Katherine region and then to the Top End.
Tourists from overseas and across Australia come to the Northern Territory, not just for the beautiful scenery that they see in Central Australia and the Top End, but to have the interaction with indigenous people and with true Aussie Territorians. That is what they say, that Territorians are very different people to people who live in the eastern states of Australia, very dinky-di Aussie people who are straightforward and will speak their mind.
Something else the member for Greatorex said was about the Northern Land Council seeing economic opportunities to put the nuclear waste dump in the area of where the member for Barkly was talking about. Under the land rights legislation, the NLC is just an entity that represents traditional owners. It is quite clear that the Northern Land Council has not represented its constituents. As the member for Barkly said, there have been letters written by traditional owners to the Northern Land Council, putting their thoughts on paper to say that they do not want a nuclear waste dump in their area and, like the member for Barkly, I am very disappointed in an entity, under Commonwealth legislation, that overrides a decision of the traditional owners.
I take this opportunity to thank the minister for clearly articulating the real story about Australia’s nuclear waste. There have been so many half-truths told in this debate that it is good for Territorians to have a clear understanding of exactly what the Commonwealth is proposing. Radioactive waste is a serious problem that requires responsible and prudent management, but the Northern Territory has been forced to accept the nuclear waste generated elsewhere. The nuclear waste repository was forced onto the Territory because most states had passed legislation specifically prohibiting nuclear waste from entering their state, resulting in the federal government abandoning one proposed national repository site after the next. Then Territorians have had to endure endless footage of federal ministers sitting on 44 gallon drums to demonstrate how safe storing nuclear waste is and that there is nothing to be afraid of, yet they were determined to store the nuclear waste as far away from themselves and the cities as possible.
So, of course Territorians asked: ‘If it so safe, why not put it in your back yard instead of ours?’ But, as the minister has pointed out, the federal government is looking for a site to store not only low-level waste but also the highest level radioactive waste produced in Australia, highly radioactive preprocessed waste from over 1000 existing and future spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor will also return to Australia over the next 40 years. This waste is the Commonwealth’s responsibility, as are the huge quantities of low-level waste from Lucas Heights. It will also accommodate reprocessed spent fuel rods that contain plutonium, a dangerous, long-lived radioactive substance that is difficult to store safely. The Lucas Heights reactor will continue to be responsible for the vast majority of radioactive waste generated in this country. It is worth noting that the New South Wales government considers that Lucas Heights should continue to act as a waste facility rather than transporting waste across that state and others. That was the conclusion of their inquiry into the transportation and storage of nuclear waste early last year.
It is important that the storage of Australia’s radioactive waste be done in a responsible, scientifically robust and transparent manner. This has not occurred. The federal government has not only disregarded the science, but failed to consult with Territorians. It has ignored our democratic right and the will of the Northern Territory parliament.
I believe it is really important at this stage to say that there has been no consultation with indigenous people where the two proposed sites are - Mt Everard and Harts Range. If there is any aim by the Commonwealth to use these two sites for a nuclear waste dump, there needs to be consultation, not just with traditional owners but with all Territorians. I will go back to saying that we need to keep the Territory safe for our future generations. We need to keep the Territory safe and clean for tourists to enjoy because the stuff that we are talking about is what they want to get away from. They want to come to clean places and the Territory is the most important place that they come when they want to enjoy their holidays and make sure that they have a clean holiday.
What is most disturbing is the Commonwealth passed this legislation when there was clearly no urgency for the decision, as the minister has detailed. In the process, it removed entitlements to procedural fairness and judicial review. It is unwarranted, unjustified, and I agree with the minister that it erodes the whole principle of self-government.
I was also concerned that the government, in particular Senator Scullion and David Tollner, argued that expansion of Australian nuclear production is necessary for medical purposes, when this is clearly not true. In a media release they said:
- A delay will severely limit the availability of life-saving radiopharmaceuticals used in the treatment of cardiovascular disease and early intervention against cancer, particularly breast cancer.
Releasing that kind of statement really frightens women who suffer from breast cancer. For two of our Territory politicians who live in the Territory putting that kind of information across and scaring women who suffer from this horrible disease, is just unjustified. We, as women, need to stand up and tell Senator Scullion and Dave Tollner that they have to be honest, and they should not be using this kind of debate and scaring people when they are talking about such a serious issue.
This statement is misleading. Medical experts argue that the future direction of nuclear medicine lies with the cyclotron produced products already being produced in Australia, and with accelerators. They argue that Australia can have a secure supply of medical isotopes for cancer treatment, medical research, and other applications, without another nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Australia imports this material on a regular basis when the Lucas Heights reactor is shut down for maintenance. The Medical Association for Prevention of War was scathing of Mr Tollner and Senator Scullion’s claims and said:
- The medical necessity claim is worse than false: it is deliberatively misleading. It is particularly contemptible manipulation of the emotions of the sick and the dying. In the real world of patient care, therapeutic isotopes make only a small contribution to the overall management.
Given that there is no urgency for a waste dump, proper consultation and scientific assessment of appropriate sites should be undertaken instead of just picking a site in the Northern Territory from a desktop research and starting to plonk nuclear waste on this beautiful land. The lack of consultation has been exacerbated by the concerns that the nominated sites were selected without any independent expert advice and could, potentially, add significant environmental consequences. However, the federal government has acted like cowboys on this issue. One of the more memorable comments was from Brendan Nelson when discussing the NT sites. I quote:
- Why on earth can’t people in the middle of nowhere have low-level and intermediate-level waste?
We on this side of the House do not classify the Northern Territory to be nowhere. It is a place where Territorians live. In the pastoral industry, Aboriginal people have all worked together and created this beautiful Territory that we all enjoy today - in real partnership. We should be making a safe Territory for our children and our grandchildren.
The Harts Range site is right next door to the communities of Engawala, Angula and Mulga Bore in the middle of some of the best pastoral country in Central Australia, whereas the site near Hamilton Downs is the catchment area for Alice Springs. The pastoral industry has expressed concern that dumping radioactive waste could damage community perceptions of the quality of Northern Territory beef. Similarly, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association argued that the placement of the facility in close proximity to the region’s Tindal, Oolloo and Jinduckin aquifer system is fraught with danger. This system supports the Northern Territory’s premier agricultural and horticultural production sites which generate crop commodities worth in excess of $80m a year.
The government has shown total disregard for the views of traditional landowners in this process. Traditional landowners of the two proposed dump sites in Central Australia have made an absolute statement of opposition to the dump plan and have vowed to actively resist this proposal. They say:
- We do not want your nuclear waste dumped on our country. You and others in Canberra might think that our country is an empty place, that no people live here. We are telling you that there are communities and outstations close to the proposed sites. This is our home and unlike you we cannot move to another place. Our country is alive, there are sacred sites, and our law and ceremonies are strong. We don’t believe that this poisonous waste can be kept safely for thousands of years. You will be gone but our grandchildren will be left to worry. We will not let you turn our country into a waste land.
The Northern Territory government recognises that radioactive waste is a reality and a serious issue. We are not against a centralised facility and acknowledge that a centralised facility could increase security, efficiency and safety. However, we believe that this needs to be achieved in a responsible, scientifically robust and transparent manner.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments made by honourable members on this important debate. It is a very important debate because it is not easy to deal with these matters, particularly when we are dealing with issues that can easily be used to promote fear. Fear can be generated if there is not a proper attention to the details surrounding this complex and volatile issue.
Communities around the globe have, at different stages, contended with the issue of nuclear power generation, the mining of uranium, enrichment, storage, etcetera. This community, this nation of Australia, is a stage that is just entering this debate. Intellectual and logical approaches to these matters need to be paramount otherwise we can easily get off the track and you can see that we are actually dealing with matters that rest principally on a foundation that is either ideological, or emotional, or politically expedient.
Firstly, as an individual, I am not afraid of nuclear power. I am not afraid of nuclear energy in the sense that I am prepared to look at it and to think carefully through it. If my children came to speak to me about such matters, I would want to make sure that I had carefully weighed what I said to them. We all know that global warming is a problem. Al Gore is going around the traps selling a couple of messages. One is: ‘There is a massive global problem’. Yes, there is. ‘It is global warming’. Yes, we all agree. ‘And as the next president of the United States, with your support I can do something about it’. That is the subliminal message, in my view, of the inconvenient truth. But that aside, it clearly establishes in the global mind that there is a concern about the warming of the planet.
The greatest cause for global warming is coal. Coal is feeding that problem. That is why we have the likes of Flannery and others looking at the issue of coal. Even Peter Garrett is saying that we do need to have a reasoned debate about nuclear industry. It does not mean that you immediately jump to the position of saying: ‘Yes, yes. We must have it’, but we must walk sensibly to assess that issue. If we are going to go down that path, inherent in that is there is going to be a by-product. That by-product needs to be stored. Other communities have assessed that issue and stored it in ways acceptable to their own communities. We need to look at that.
If we are going to bring discipline to this issue, first we are going to have to remove the emotion from it. The emotion can be modified by weighing carefully the facts, ensuring we are not putting our hand to the issue to tilt it one way to suit a shorter-term gain. There will be facts tossed around the place, and yelled and screamed, one side to the other, but we really must be moderate. One issue that helps me come to the view that there is some discrepancy in the positions taken by members in this Chamber is that when you talk about the sacredness of land, you talk about the ties that you have to places, and how land can be changed; that it has a history beyond European civilisation. You can speak with passion about it; you speak because Canberra is the target. When it is the McArthur River: mute. Similar issues apply, yet members speak not a word in this Chamber because Canberra is not the target. It is their own group. That troubles me.
You need to reflect on the principles on which you base a position. Canberra being the target, go for it, but recognise the motivation that stands behind your justification for the arguments that are raised. It is plain to see and it makes it a little weak when that is the reason for a passionate position. The foundation is exposed.
When you are able to comfortably, on one hand, have uranium extracted from the ground and exported along a railway line, across your port here in Darwin, and see that as not a problem whatsoever, but you do not want to have an expansion, to see that industry develop and you are happy for it to be exported to other countries but under no circumstances are you interested in having it returned from whence it came, those issues have to be weighed fairly. Is that a fair position to take? If it is not, as logically it assumes that it is not a fair position to take, therefore, you should not dig it out of the ground nor export it. But if you are going to export it, you cannot be inconsistent. You need to follow the logic all the way through.
What drives this is principally the interest in scoring political goals. The position is logically compromised by taking that as a position. In saying that you have consulted the community, you have actually pumped a specific message. You have allowed our own financial resources to be generated into a campaign that has cost approximately $70 a signature, which was presented to the federal parliament. I find that disturbing. It has already been mentioned in the Chamber that there have been other petitions supported by community groups that have been presented to this government, and they are not responsive in the slightest, yet they are able to fund a massive petition campaign that results in just over 4500 signatures and expect the federal government to respond immediately. Those sorts of things concern me.
The use of language - I had to check again; I kept hearing it echoed in speeches: it will be the highest level of waste. That is alarming in itself as a clever use of words. Where, currently, is the Territory’s highest level of radioactive material stored? It is stored at Royal Darwin Hospital. That is the current highest. So the highest level that will be stored in this facility is the highest level in Australia. That does not make it the highest level in the world. Using those words, without any modifier, creates a deliberate scenario that is designed to unsettle and then, being unsettled, you can use this argument to suit an ideological or a political position. That is what troubles me.
However, the member for Sanderson, who groans slightly – I was interested in your comments. There were some aspects of it that I had to put the filters up because you have, obviously, taken an angry pill. I hope it is as a result of something you have taken and that you are not intrinsically inclined that way, but there are aspects of your comments that, as a result of travelling and visiting other places, you actually raised some very important issues. At least you have been to other places, looked and seen, and asked some important questions about what you had seen and learned. That is good to hear, because we are not just political operators in here. We are actually community leaders, and you have shown a bit of that in some of your comments.
You did say something that I cannot support; that is, that you believe that in the national interests it would be better for Australia to increase the use of coal. I cannot support that and I do not think, if you followed that through, you would find much support on that. Increasing coal use in the national interests – I cannot support that.
I am quite interested in learning more of your position on – and I certainly do support it as it was mentioned in your comments – exploring the idea of enriching uranium in Australia, exporting it and leasing it back. That is something worth considering. I am very pleased that, in your trip to the United States, you were able to assess the potential of adding value to that which comes from our own ground and managing the product all the way through.
I do have great difficulties with the tone of this debate. It is clearly intended to maintain and entrench a particular position, which is political. It is clear that Canberra is the target, so the gloves are off – you can get fully involved in that. All the members will get up and have a good old chat about it, but when it comes something closer to home and Canberra is not the target, you are hiding back in your party ranks. That is disturbing and I believe it would be a disturbance to any member if they were able to reflect on the contrast in positions taken. You can probably explain it away, but if you stopped and thought about it, it would be a difficult matter to explain away. Heaven knows what happens in your caucus rooms – you tell me from time to time. I am genuinely concerned because some of you would have great difficulty remaining mute in caucus on positions of apparent unity in the Chamber. How do you translate that back into the Chamber and pretend that you do support a line, when you are actually representing your electorates more than you are representing your party? That is something that is quite clear in this debate.
For the reasons I have indicated, because of the basis upon which this whole exercise rests, I cannot find myself supporting the motion at all in any way. It is disingenuous. I believe you are being quite false in the way that you are posturing. Once again, we are getting these issues raised in the parliament and, clearly, the objective is a political one. You want to advance that matter, to seek that objective only, and compromise the foundational issues of what you genuinely believe in and what you have actually logically thought through. I cannot support you.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the minister in her statement on the issue of nuclear waste dumps in the Northern Territory. Firstly, I would like to state that one of the two proposed sites in Central Australia is in my electorate of Stuart. The key question in the debate is: what about the rights of Territorians to make decisions that are in their own best interests and wellbeing?
I was disappointed to hear the members for Araluen and Greatorex’s contribution to this debate. I am particularly disappointed that both the member for Araluen and the member for Greatorex are not standing up for the people of Central Australia. Instead, they stand up for their mates in Canberra, those fly in/fly out politicians from down south. Obviously, the members for Araluen and Greatorex have taken the people in Alice Springs and Central Australia for granted. I can assure them we will be letting them know.
During the by-election, I had people raise this issue with me, as well as their opposition to the proposed waste facility. My constituents are concerned about nuclear waste being dumped on their land. They are very worried. I participated in a public forum in August last year with some 250 residents of Central Australia voicing strongly their opposition to the proposed waste facility. I note that the member for Macdonnell was also there in support, as well as the previous Minister for Central Australia. I also note that on Sunday, 1 October 2006, some 300 people attended the Maralinga day in Alice Springs. I also note that the member for Barkly and the Minister for Central Australia spoke at this event along with traditional owners. I mention also that the petition against the nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory has some 6000 signatures to date.
What I have been attempting to demonstrate is that the people of the Northern Territory, the people of Alice Springs, reject the Commonwealth’s proposal of placing a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The real story behind this is that the Commonwealth government wants to put the waste dump here because they can. What we are seeing is the contempt of the Commonwealth government, these fly in/fly out politicians on a number of issues, as well as the nuclear waste facility. The people of Stuart want consultation on this issue. Indigenous people want economic development, but they want development that is sustainable, that is going to deliver outcomes for their communities and families.
There are many examples of sustainable economic activities in my electorate. The Tanami and Granites gold mines, the growing horticultural industry in the Anmatjere region, and the vast cattle stations are some. Tourism is a growing part of the Stuart economy. The small outstations of Black Tank, which recently won a Tidy Towns Award in 2004, and Harry Creek South are both developing small family-based tourism ventures just up the road from Mt Everard. These industries are sustainable. The Commonwealth should focus on assisting these communities with the development of sustainable industries, and not force nuclear waste facilities onto the people of the Northern Territory by trying to close down these small outstations. Diametrically opposed to the proposed Mt Everard site are the small communities of 16 Mile, Hamilton Downs and the Hamilton Downs youth camp. These small family-based outstations use the land around Mt Everard for hunting and traditional purposes.
Another big concern that people in my electorate have expressed to me is the transportation of this material to the waste dump. As we all know, the Tanami and Stuart Highways are major routes for the mining industry, tourists, pastoralists and local indigenous communities.
Mr Acting Speaker, there is great opposition to this in Central Australia and in the Territory. The site at Mt Everard is not a vast piece of empty land; there are people living close to this proposed site. I support this government’s stance on this issue, and oppose this proposal put by the Commonwealth government. I encourage the members for Araluen and Greatorex to stand up for Alice Springs and Central Australia, and talk to their mates in Canberra about consulting with the communities on this most important issue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. As we heard through some of the members’ contributions, it can be an emotive debate, and that can sometimes cause us to get off track from the real issue - particularly members of the opposition. They should have read the statement clearly instead of throwing accusations.
The member for Greatorex said: ‘Oh, it is a total fabrication and how dare you come in here and say these things’. The member for Nelson, because he quotes from one scientist, thinks that that one scientist and that view is the only view. He and the member for Greatorex went off on this long tangent about ‘we went to Lucas Heights’. They started sounding like Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men. I just wonder whether they went down in the plane together and held hands and then went off to Lucas Heights and had a very good trip. The whole point of this exercise of the statement and the debate was not about Lucas Heights the reactor. It was about the waste coming from that reactor and where it was going to go. They were completely right off the radar with any contribution to the debate.
I will try to go through most of the issues raised by members in the debate.
The member for Araluen said that she agreed with the threshold issues about not wanting a nuclear waste dump in the Territory but believes we were beating it up and being disingenuous. She had a superficial bleat about me beating up a scare campaign and that all we are dealing with is low- and intermediate-level waste, and that the federal government has been completely open about that. Not true, member for Araluen.
The member for Araluen should have attended an ANSTO session – and I am sure she did. With enough jumping up and down the federal government allowed ANSTO to visit Alice Springs – I would have to check with the member for Barkly about Tennant Creek – Katherine and Darwin with their picture show and their talk on what was being proposed. I went along to a couple of those sessions and if you were to ask any questions of those ANSTO scientists there were very guarded responses. People asked very innocently if this waste is low level and, if it is quite safe in New South Wales, why they want to transport it 3000 km across the country and put it in the Northern Territory. That simple question, which many people throughout the Northern Territory have asked, could not get any responses from ANSTO scientists, nor would any representative of the federal government give a straight response as to what the real story is and what the dump really was going to become.
My statement clearly outlined also that if there is going to be a waste dump, a repository, in the Northern Territory, be honest about it. Let us be open, let us be transparent; have the debate in the wider Northern Territory community, weigh up all the pros and cons, and see what that process involved.
I have already said why I did not go to Lucas Heights. It was not to look at the reactor that was generating the waste in the form of the rods that were going to France to be reprocessed. The reason for my overseas trip to France and Finland was to follow the rods that were going from Lucas Heights to France, to talk to the experts who were reprocessing those rods, and to get the facts as to how those waste levels are categorised, and the return of those reprocessed rods to Australia. It was to get those facts.
However, the members for Greatorex and Nelson are such advocates. I know that the member for Nelson keeps slamming my left credentials and nailing my socialist colours to the mast, and there cannot be any other view because it is pro-uranium and pro-nuclear. He has always criticised me and the EPA as being Claytons. The member for Nelson is a Clayton greenie. He comes into this Chamber, sees which way the wind is blowing and then he nails his flag to the mast after he sees the politics attached to it.
If the member for Nelson was so pro-nuclear waste dump, he should consult his electorate and ask them if they want a nuclear waste dump in Nelson. If those other sites are not suitable, we have a Defence area in the electorate of Nelson. The member for Nelson should do the right thing. If he is talking about, ‘Let us do the right thing for Australia for all Australians, this is our obligation, our responsibility, we should be the recipients of this waste dump’, then the member for Nelson should talk to every single one of his constituents, do a survey and say: ‘Good constituents of Nelson, we should put up our hands because we have an obligation and a responsibility to the nation to house and to become the dumping ground for the nuclear waste of Australia’.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I challenge you, member for Nelson. If you think this is the most honourable thing for the nation, you should do your bit. You should do your bit for the nation and you should talk …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Acting Speaker, when the member for Nelson was talking, I listened to his contribution. I was not sitting in my seat, but I was in the lobby and I listened to his contribution. I should be given the courtesy by the member for Nelson - who has had his say on this debate - to sit there and listen to the response. You cannot say something and not listen to the response …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson! Member for Nelson, please stop interjecting and allow the minister to finish her statement.
Mr Wood: She is baiting me.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Oh, precious!
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Well, don’t bite, you poor thing.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did not think I was baiting you.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: She is only small. She doesn’t take big bites.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Acting Speaker, the member for Nelson needs to take on that challenge. He needs to do that on behalf of the nation instead of saying that these things should be elsewhere.
Back to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Araluen, who was so confident about saying it is low-level and intermediate-level waste. I would like to pose a couple of questions to her. How does she define it, please? If she is so knowledgeable she needs to define what is the criteria that makes waste low level, and intermediate level, and does that mean that they are somehow safe? I ask her: is intermediate-level waste safe? What is its …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will get to you, member for Greatorex, don’t worry. What is its radioactivity? If a person is exposed to low-, intermediate- or high-level waste, does she know what happens? What, in fact, is a safe level of exposure?
The public annual limit of exposure is 1 millisievert per year. Does she know that or know what it means? Does she know or is she blindly repeating the federal government line? She should also note that a parliamentary inquiry found that classifying waste as low-, intermediate- and high-level was not helpful and was misleading.
She had a look at the motion that I put to the federal government and said: ‘It does not even deserve my time’. That is fantastic because we will get this down. One of the most contentious issues is the misleading advertising that has been done in Central Australia about the parks, reserves and the joint management. They say that the issue about nuclear waste dumps is misleading and a total fabrication. Well, member for Greatorex, you have not seen anything yet. You have been totally misleading and fabricating a whole lot of mistruths about joint management and the parks and reserves, and you have the cheek and the gall to stand here, with your hand on your heart as if you are perfectly clear on all of this, and say that you tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth constantly. You need to look at yourself and the role that you play in misleading the community in terms of the joint management.
The member for Araluen said: ‘It does not even deserve my time’. This is the Leader of the Opposition who is treating Territorians, and especially the people of Central Australia, of her electorate, with utter contempt. She cannot be bothered standing up for their rights. We will let them know that this is what she thinks about it.
She talked about the medical benefits of it all, and so did the member for Greatorex. No one denies that. We do not deny the medical benefits, but do not be misleading that this is the only thing. The members for Nelson and Greatorex said: ‘You are denying’, and the Senator for the Northern Territory, Nigel Scullion, who ought to hang his head in shame, and ‘Nuke Dave’, the member for Solomon, who runs this line as well, says that we are denying cancer patients. I find that galling and insulting, Mr Acting Speaker; that people could actually use people’s suffering from this horrible thing as a means of running this debate. These people over there claim that we are falsifying and being misleading. Every single one of those members who used cancer patients in this debate ought to hang their head in shame.
You made strange comparisons with McArthur River, and so did the member for Blain. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Oh, well, we know all about it’. We know all about their position with McArthur River, but to raise it in this debate - or are they talking about the process? I completely missed the point there. The member for Blain said the same thing.
The member for Araluen also talked about site selection process and the history of the decision to put the dump in the Northern Territory. What I was dealing with in my statement and the motion is the current situation, not what it might have been if the South Australians had done something different. I noticed that the three of them all bleated - even the member for Nelson so I should say four of them; they are all the same colour, in terms of political solidarity …
Mr Wood: Oh, that is better. I was a bit worried there for a minute.
Dr Burns: He has a history on dumps.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Oh, Humpty Doo, that is right. I forgot about that.
Mr Wood: The toxic dump at Humpty Doo.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Member for Johnston, I should not have said that.
Mr Acting Speaker, the fact remains that the site selection process was very dodgy, and none of the three sites had ever appeared in any report. If they had bothered reading my statement properly, I actually said that, in 1992, these guys were all standing up and bleating as if it was not there, and I had not gone through that process. I had also looked at that. In 1992, yes, under the federal Labor government, there had been this inquiry and this report. Nobody denies that, and I did not deny it; it is in the statement. But what was not in that report was where the site was. The Northern Territory was not part of the site selections in that report …
Mr Wood: Yes, it was. There are two reports.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Stop being misleading, because remember you guys said: ‘You have to stop being misleading, you have to stop being emotive and you have to stop. This is all a fabrication’. Well, the 1992 report did not have a single Northern Territory site in it. We all agree that the selection process was dodgy. The fact remains that the Commonwealth government could have overridden the South Australian decision to block the feds acquiring the selected site by declaring it a national park. However, the Commonwealth chose not to. Instead, they picked the Northern Territory.
We have heard from the contributors on the other side. Why did they pick the Northern Territory versus South Australia? Everyone says do not play politics with this: ‘How many seats for South Australia in federal parliament? The Northern Territory’s ‘Nuke Dave’ is dispensable; we could lose one seat. We could afford to lose one seat. We cannot afford to lose 10 seats in South Australia’. If we look at the whole process of this debate and this argument of why the federal government went down this road, and why the Northern Territory is having a nuclear waste dump dumped on it, it is because of 10 seats in South Australia versus one seat in the Northern Territory. We know one seat is better to lose than 10 seats in South Australia.
There were claims from the Leader of the Opposition of the NT government’s inaction in fighting the dump. Inaction! There have been a number of things done by this government - my trip and report from that; and we brought in the legislation which the CLP and the member for Nelson did not support. There are a number of initiatives that we have put in place to try to work with the wider community to get the information out.
I have some key themes that I believe need to be repeated. Through this whole thing, the federal government lied. This is a broken promise; that was clear through the statement. This is a broken promise and they lied. The Northern Territory does not want to be Australia’s dumping ground. Despite what the members for Nelson, Blain, and Greatorex say, this is high-grade nuclear waste, and they mislead us about that too. Canberra treats Territorians as second-class citizens. This government is standing up …
Mr Wood: What has that got to do with Lucas Heights?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, I keep digressing. I already touched on the member for Greatorex’s comment that it was total fabrication. That is the first burst of emotional energy I have seen in the member for Greatorex to do with this. That was good because this debate does get people a bit emotional. His position is that because there was a nationally agreed process in 1992 - and we went over that - we have to live with that now, and we should just accept having it imposed on us, unilaterally, by the Commonwealth. He talked about the Northern Land Council, but I believe the response of my colleague, the member for Barkly’s in his contribution …
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, you have one minute left.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … that the Northern Land Council …
_______________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Mr KIELY: Mr Acting Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow the minister to finish her response.
Motion agreed to.
_______________
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Regarding the NLC, the member for Barkly’s contribution pointed to some answers there. Rather than the member for Greatorex playing politics with it and trying to say: ‘Oh well, the NLC is showing foresight on this’, the member for Greatorex does not really believe that because he believes in the politics that he can smell out of it. There are some biting issues that the member for Barkly raised, and answers that need to be forthcoming from the Northern Land Council regarding the traditional owners of Muckaty.
He criticised me for not going to Lucas Heights. Both he and the member for Nelson were united in that. As I said, so what? I did not go to Lucas Heights. I did not need to go to Lucas Heights. That was not the purpose of this. The purpose was - and before you …
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Kiely: It is not about nuclear reactors. It is about nuclear waste dumps.
Mr Wood: Where do you think I am coming from?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: As I said before, the member for Nelson walked in here – and the member for Greatorex feels brave now because he has two of his buddies to stand …
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I actually said when the member for Greatorex was sitting there all on his lonesome that I did not need to go to Lucas Heights to have a look at what was there because the whole issue was about a waste dump and about the repository. It was about what was being done …
Dr Lim: Where is it now? Go and look at it for yourself.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hold on, hold on. It was about what was being generated. It was what was being generated at Lucas Heights, which is the fuel rods. It was to go and have a look at where those fuel rods were being reprocessed and what was proposed to be coming back to Australia and dumped on the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson and member for Greatorex!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There were enough of you mob running around Lucas Heights. It was looking at if we are going to have a central repository for Australia, then we needed to have a look at what is best practice; what is needed in Australia in terms of best practice both in the short-, medium- and long-term ...
Mr Wood: We have a nuclear research reactor, not a power plant.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There was no point in going to …
Mr Wood: There is a lot of difference.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, one minute. Member for Nelson, I have asked you a couple of times now to stop your interjections. The minister is trying to finalise her debate. You should give her some respect in that degree.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I will look at you, Mr Acting Speaker, I will not look over there. He is provocative. They are the ones who are doing this.
Mr Wood: The statement is provocative. See the smile on her face.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Minister, please continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The whole point of going to France and Finland was to look at how the process should be done properly - I am looking at you, Mr Acting Speaker, I will not look over there - including community control over siting of facilities. The member for Greatorex said the French legal opinion had no influence or effect on the reprocessing. I do not know enough about the French legal system to advise. Of course ANSTO will say the agreement is safe. There are still legal uncertainties with all of this. Ignorance prevails on the other side in terms of: ‘We will just take this at face value. Oh yes, our mates in Canberra say this is what is happening. Therefore, we should just accept …
Mr Wood: The scientists at Lucas Heights are dumb?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ‘Therefore, we should accept their word for it, that everything is okay. We have covered all the legal avenues on this. Trust us. This is not going to be bad for the Northern Territory’.
They even spin the line that it has an economic driver to it. Having looked at those repositories in both France and Finland, I was struggling to see what the economic benefits are. The spin that came out of Canberra and out of mouths of the CLP that this has an economic driver to it - maybe they have Peter Pan sitting on their desks telling them otherwise.
The member for Greatorex claimed low-level waste and intermediate storage of medium-level waste, but I think that I have done that to death. As I said in my statement, there are the issues of how we categorise that waste, internationally under best practice versus what is done in Australia, and how that process happens is going to be …
Mr Wood: It is your own Northern Territory government document.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … is going to be two different things.
I will table - the member for Nelson waves his little presentation of what he has there - the Radioactive Waste Management CEA Activities regarding one of the facilities in France I visited where the Australian waste is actually stored, La Hague, and some of the other areas in France. I table that for the Parliamentary Record because that presentation does go into the waste categories. They also have discussions with ANSTO on quite a number of those things.
The member for Greatorex, the Einstein of the CLP, said that Finland has made no final decision on disposal. I do not know where you get that from, member for Greatorex; that is exactly what their facility is about. His other claim is that there is no accurate information. The whole point about my description of Finland and France was that there is now open and transparent discussion, unlike the Australian government, which is dealing in ignorance, falsehoods and fabrication of definitions of levels of waste.
The whole side over there said that South Australia is being cowardly. I ask the members for Blain and Greatorex and the Leader of the Opposition whether they are brave enough to oppose their buddies in Canberra. Who is the coward here? Why was Senator Scullion not brave enough to oppose the legislation? If there are cowards in this debate, they all belong to the same camp as the members for Greatorex, Blain, Nelson and the Leader of the Opposition. You asked what we have done to ensure proper debate in the Territory. That is what today should be about - unlike the member for Araluen who told the parliament and the people of the Territory that this is not worth wasting her time on. Is this debate? She is the Leader of the Opposition and she could not be bothered spending her time on this.
What does Lucas Heights tell us? This is from the member for Greatorex. Other than where the stuff is coming from it does not tell us anything about where the Commonwealth is sending it to, and that is to us here in the Territory. He says he is now prepared to accept reality, that he supports the waste being dumped in the Territory. That seems like behaviour of someone not prepared to stand up for the Territory, and not brave enough to speak out for the Territory.
He claimed French waste is medium-level waste. If he thinks the people with whom I spoke in France, with ANDRA and the director of the CEA, were ordinary people – these are high-level scientific people with science backgrounds who provided the information. Is the member for Greatorex saying their view does not matter?
Dr BURNS: Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Dr Lim: You cannot have it twice, this is not fair. Come on, fair is fair.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: For clarification, the original extension of time moved by the member for Sanderson was for the suspension of standing orders so that the minister could complete her speech. The clock was set at 10 minutes, but it should not have been. The minister should finish her speech. There is no point or order. Please continue, minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Thank you. I do not have far to go. Shame on the member for Greatorex because he went over time on his speech and we gave him an extension of time. It is a bit petulant of the member for Greatorex not to allow me time to finish my remarks, given that I had to listen to their responses and I am trying to address them.
This is an important issue for the Northern Territory. As I have said to all members on the other side, if this waste dump and this repository is good enough for the Northern Territory, then they need to clearly tell their electorates and they need to clearly tell the Northern Territory. They also need to tell the Northern Territory the facts rather than mistruths. This debate and the contributions of all members needs to go out to the wider Northern Territory community. We have an obligation and a responsibility as parliamentarians to stand here in the interests of all Territorians. This is a very important issue for the Northern Territory, and if the five members of the opposition feel that this is not an important issue for the Northern Territory, then they need to tell the truth about things.
Touching quickly on some of the key messages of my speech, I am well aware that the situation in this country regarding volume of nuclear waste is in a completely different category from France and Finland. I said that a number of times, even though members of the opposition kept wanting to point out that I had not done that and that I was fabricating the whole thing. What I did say very clearly in my statement was that we could learn a lot from how it is done elsewhere. France and Finland are two countries that have been dealing with nuclear energy, both as a power source and with research, for over 20 years - France for 25 years and Finland for nearly the same. They have gone through those exercises and processes.
If there have been other repositories built elsewhere then we should look at how it is done there. The same with America; the member for Sanderson pointed out what he had seen in America and the processes that are done and adopted by the United States government. We could look at those lessons overseas and we need to at least commit to long-term planning and to getting it right from the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with saying to the Commonwealth government: ‘Let us get it right, if you are going to do this’. Yes, the 1992 report was started under a federal Labor government - no one is denying that. If we need a central repository, let us get it right, and it needs to be right from the beginning because this is going to affect many generations to come. It needs to involve the local communities. They need to be on board with this and give them the rights in the process - not just lip service of public comment.
Plan and investigate different sites thoroughly and openly. They have not done that to date. They have just selected Mt Everard, Harts Range and the King River near Katherine - goodness knows where they have picked them from – but there certainly was no planning or investigation. They need to recognise that they need to get it right and resources are required.
Most of all, they need to be open about the process and the facility. In France and Finland, as I said, there was not one hidden agenda. With all the government officials and scientists we met with, both within government and also the NGOs, nothing appeared to be hidden. The mistakes were admitted. They were quite open about all of these things, and they have had problems in the past. They did not hide any of that, but they certainly went through with us what they have done to address where they have come up against issues with leakage and other things.
The French officials were quite frank with us that they wasted a few years. Certainly, much time was wasted by not realising the importance of community consultation and public sentiment. In Finland, they were not far from hiding the fact that the final nuclear waste storage facility has been built not far from Pori, as I said, in Finland. They have done a lot of work with the whole of the community, if not the whole of Finland - to Helsinki and other places getting the information out.
We are being short-changed by our federal government in the way they are dealing with Australia’s nuclear waste disposal issues. Despite what the - I hate saying CLP because the Liberal Party is starting to creep in there and there is a touch of the Nationals with the Independent members. However, this is an important issue. The motion is one of most importance. We need to send a strong message to the Commonwealth government about being open and transparent and about putting it on hold. John Howard, as I said in my statement, has in recent days talked about a nuclear power industry. I would like to see whether, at some stage in the forward estimates, there is any money on their books for a nuclear power generator. The member for Sanderson touched on the coal industry and having coal for 300 years. It will be interesting whether this is just a big smokescreen by the Prime Minister. I do not think he is going to upset his mates in the coal industry in favour of nuclear energy. I admit that we need to have the debate and to look at all of these issues. However, he needs to be a bit more honest as to why he is setting this inquiry.
I thank all members who have contributed to the debate, especially the members for Sanderson and Macdonnell. I have been in the member for Macdonnell’s office where there has been meetings with the traditional owners from the Mt Everard and the Harts Range sites, where they have been totally opposed to it. I thank the member for Stuart for his contribution, and the member for Barkly. The questions that he raised regarding of the Northern Land Council and Muckaty need to be addressed. I thank all members who contributed to this most important debate. I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 17 Noes 4
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Mr Bonson Dr Lim
Mr Burke Mr Mills
Dr Burns Mr Wood
Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Chronic Disease in the Northern Territory
Chronic Disease in the Northern Territory
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, today I speak about how this government is improving the outcomes for people suffering from chronic disease in the Northern Territory. Chronic diseases include diabetes, lung disease, high blood pressure, renal disease and chronic lung disease. Heart disease, in particular, continues to be the No 1 killer of Territorians. Aboriginal Territorians have particularly high rates of chronic disease but chronic disease is not just a problem for the Aboriginal community. They affect Territorians from all backgrounds and walks of life living in all areas of the Territory. Most of the burden of disease for all Territorians is due to these conditions. In fact, they account for 22% of the disease burden for the non-Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory and 31% of the disease burden for the Aboriginal community.
Addressing this burden of disease is, obviously, a significant challenge for the whole of the Territory community. However, the good news is that chronic disease can be prevented. The even better news is that we are starting to make a difference as new evidence shows a slowing in the rate of chronic diseases. However, we cannot be complacent about these figures. They are only the beginning and a great deal more work is needed. I am committed to carrying on that work both personally and as a member of this government.
The improvements we are seeing now have no single cause. Turning the tide of chronic disease is the result of efforts by health professionals and researchers from both the government and non-government sectors over a long period of time. They also result from the efforts of the community itself which has been at the forefront of the struggle to put in place health services to detect, manage and treat chronic disease. The Australian government, too, has played a role through increased funding for primary health care over the last 10 years. The Northern Territory government has also played its part, for which I would especially like to thank my predecessors as Health minister, the member for Nightcliff and the former member for Stuart. Under their stewardship, the health system in the Northern Territory has seen greatly increased funding, up 64% in the five years since 2001.
We have also established a planned and strategic approach encapsulated in Building Healthier Communities, this government’s framework for improving health and community services for Territorians. A number of strategies within the Building Healthier Communities framework contribute to the prevention, detection and management of diseases from childhood to old age. I will address some of these in detail later in the statement, but first I would like to give you some background about the chronic diseases.
Chronic diseases have complex and multiple causes. They may even have their beginnings before birth and become more prevalent with the progression to older age. They usually have a gradual onset and become apparent throughout life. They are long-term and persistent, leading to gradual deterioration of health and, while not usually immediately life-threatening, they are the most common cause of early death. They affect peoples’ quality of life through their physical limitations and disabilities.
What can be done to tackle these diseases? I am pleased to note that the Northern Territory is nationally and internationally recognised for its approach encapsulated in the NT Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. The strategy focuses on, first, preventing these diseases; second, detecting the disease at an early stage through screening; and third, managing the condition well in both the primary care and hospital sectors. The Territory strategy was the first in Australia to include birth outcomes and infant nutrition as a preventative component of adult chronic disease strategy as well as the first to take on a comprehensive approach to these diseases.
A distinguishing factor of the Northern Territory’s approach is integration. The strategy focuses on the five common chronic diseases of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, chronic obstructive airways disease and ischaemic heart disease. All these diseases share common lifestyle causes and risk factors and, under the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, are not addressed as separate and unrelated problems. This is important as it assists us to use health resources more efficiently.
This approach recognises that these diseases are, in fact, strongly interlinked and that people frequently develop more than one disease. Dealing with these conditions as inter-related is also important for prevention because they have common underlying risk factors. Among these risk factors are poor nutrition and limited physical activity, which together are leading to high rates of obesity, poor environmental conditions which cause infection, alcohol misuse, tobacco smoking, childhood malnutrition, and low birth weight.
The Northern Territory’s Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy uses research evidence to determine priorities and investment. It is focused on bringing about changes across the health system, on reducing risks, on strengthening primary health care services and developing systems that support individuals and their families.
The health sector is mainly focused on ensuring early detection of these diseases and providing the recommended treatments to prevent complications. We have also been introducing systems to improve the coordination of care, including significant work on information technology which is recognised as an important component of effective delivery of health services for chronic diseases.
There has been significant effort invested in training health professionals. This is important, as research evidence is showing that health staff need to work in ways that are different from those in which they have been traditionally trained. Efforts to prevent these diseases have focused on early childhood population approaches to improve nutrition and physical activity and reducing the impact of tobacco.
It is important to also state that the health and wellbeing of Territorians are complex issues that reach beyond the scope of the responsibilities of the health system alone. Many other factors such as employment, education, housing and community infrastructure influence health status. In particular, it is important to note international research pioneered by Jack and Pat Caldwell demonstrate that education levels, particularly of women, are strongly associated with improved health. These social determinants require all areas of government to work in an integrated fashion to address the broader challenges to health and wellbeing.
I am pleased to report that the recent intergovernmental development of a National Chronic Disease Strategy has drawn heavily on the Northern Territory Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. The National Chronic Disease Strategy, signed off by Health ministers in 2005, provides national policy directions to strengthen chronic disease prevention and the management of chronic disease. It is designed to achieve improved outcomes through organised and systematic actions at all levels. The recommended directions and key priorities are highly consistent with the approach we have been taking in the Northern Territory. In addition, the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, is currently exploring a number of issues with specific relevance to chronic disease, and I understand that the Chief Minister’s Department and Northern Territory Treasury are leading this initiative with active support of the Department of Health and Community Services.
I will now outline some of the activities that we are currently implementing that will assist in reducing the impact of these chronic diseases. Giving kids a good start in life – our No 1 priority in the Building Healthier Communities framework - is a powerful way of preventing chronic disease occurring later in life. Every child in the Northern Territory deserves to get the best possible start in life. We know that the health of mothers during pregnancy, and that of their children during their early years, impacts on the prevalence of chronic disease in later life. Investment in antenatal care and child health services provides the greatest opportunity for long-term health gains. Quality antenatal care to ensure a healthy pregnancy, treating medical problems as they arise, attending to social risk factors - in particular, stopping smoking - and linking with family and other support services improves outcomes. This means fewer complications for mother, more babies born on time, healthy and of a normal birth weight.
Likewise, quality child health services will keep children on track so that they grow and develop and they are healthy, ready to learn and are prepared for school. This includes a broad range of services and supports, including regular child health checks, vaccinations, support for breast feeding, advice and support for good nutrition, dental care, early identification and prompt treatment of health problems, developing parenting skills, and linking to other support and social services. Children who are sick, undernourished or lack care and nurturing do not as well in all areas of life. So not only is improving kids’ early years an investment in their future adult health, but it will also have pay-offs in their future educational attainment and employment opportunities, and avoiding antisocial behaviour and crime.
The compelling evidence linking low birth weight and poor infant growth to the development of chronic disease in later life is one of the reasons why child and maternal health has been a strong focus for this government in recent years. This focus has contributed to significant maternal and child health gains in the Territory.
Particularly encouraging is the fact that the NT indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by a dramatic 36% in the last few years. At the end of the 1990s, the indigenous infant mortality rate was 25 per 1000 births. In the period 2001 to 2003, it was down to 16 per 1000 births. It is still too high, over double the non-indigenous rate of 6.5 per 1000 births, but the gap is narrowing and it is promising that the figures are moving in the right direction. There have also been small but steady improvements in birth weight and infant growth over the past five years. These positive changes can be traced to better child and maternal health services, as well as better resourcing of the health system overall. The Aboriginal community has made a key contribution to these achievements through their own actions and their own community-controlled health services.
These figures bode well for the future, but there is also more direct evidence of successes in the field of chronic disease. Recent data published by the Menzies School of Health Research and the Department of Health and Community Services in the Medical Journal of Australia shows that although death rates in the Northern Territory indigenous population from ischaemic heart disease and diabetes increased between 1977 and 2001, there was a slowing of this trend during the 1990s. The publication concludes that these early changes give reason to hope that improvements in primary health care put the brakes on chronic disease amongst Aboriginal Territorians.
Also impressive is the recent trend data from 2001 to 2003, which has shown a significant gain in life expectancy. This has particularly improved for Aboriginal women and is strongly linked to a reduction in deaths from chronic disease. It appears that the focused efforts within the health sector are achieving these positive outcomes.
There are also other encouraging signs that the preventable chronic disease strategy is positively impacting on health outcomes. For example, while NT rates of end-stage renal failure remain the highest in Australia at approximately 1300 new cases per million, they have not increased at the predicted rate. The survival of people on dialysis treatment has improved dramatically, especially in Central Australia. This reflects improved effectiveness within the primary health care sector, as well as within the renal sector. This close collaboration and cooperation across sectors appears to be especially effective for people with renal disease. Our primary health care sector is particularly aware and knowledgeable about screening and treating renal disease, and they are well supported by the acute care sector to manage complex cases.
This government has invested significantly in renal services, with expanded access to dialysis in both the major and regional centres, as well as in remote communities. Providing services close to home is an important component of Building Healthier Communities. I am pleased to report that access to lifesaving dialysis today is vastly improved from five years ago. In Central Australia, we have seen the recruitment of two kidney specialists, increased renal nursing staff, and the expansion of dialysis machines in Alice Springs. The dialysis facility at Tennant Creek, which we first established in 2002, is now fully utilised with 32 people now able to live close to home with family rather than be separated by long distances.
We are also funding an innovative approach to renal services with the Western Desert communities which have developed a ‘reverse respite’ program that enables all members to regularly and safely go home for short periods to stay with their families whilst continuing their dialysis supported by a renal nurse.
Another unique and important aspect of delivering health services in the Northern Territory is the close relationship between the health and research sectors. Cooperative research by clinicians and researchers in the area of renal disease is a good example of this. We have supported important research in the fields of effective communication with patients, especially across cultures, involving primary health care delivery, standards for renal services, and access issues for kidney transplantation. Much of this work has been of national significant, as well as influencing improved service delivery locally.
There is good evidence that nutrition programs which address food supply and demand can lead to reductions in the risk factors for chronic disease. Much work still needs to be done to improve the range, quality and cost of food in stores in remote areas of the Territory. However, the annual market basket surveys have shown improvements in both quality and availability of nutritional food in remote communities. The Remote Indigenous Stores and Takeaway project, a northern Australian initiative, aims to foster a community and industry culture which accepts responsibility of the store in contributing to the health of its customers. This is a good example of improving health outcomes by working with partners outside the health sector, such as business and transport industries.
Those of you who know me will know that I am particularly passionate about reducing the incidence of smoking in the community. Reducing rates of tobacco smoking is essential to reducing the future burden of chronic disease. My colleague, the member for Karama, has direct responsibility in the Community Services portfolio for the Alcohol and Other Drugs program. However, health staff within both primary care and the hospital sectors have an important role to play by supporting people to quit smoking and encouraging young people not to start. Doctors, nurses and health workers integrate this advice and support opportunistically when people are using health services. This may be for those with known chronic disease who are attending a health centre for routine checks or are in hospital because of complications.
Adult health checks that aim to detect chronic disease in an early stage also provide an opportunity to provide information and practical advice on health behaviours for tobacco, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity and emotional health. I understand that the Department of Health and Community Services is developing a comprehensive tobacco control and cessation program to be delivered in five remote communities. This involves collaboration across primary health care, child health, preventable chronic disease and alcohol and other drugs programs. The National Heart Foundation and Menzies School of Health Research are also actively involved.
Training the health workforce to deal more effectively with the detection and management of chronic disease has been recognised as an important priority. As previously mentioned, our long-standing methods of training health professionals to deal with an individual problem as it occurs are not ideal for dealing with chronic diseases. Instead, health professionals need the ability to work effectively within teams using structured and systematic approaches to delivering services. They must be able to communicate to a broad range of professionals and, most importantly, need to be able to support the individual person and their family to self-manage their illness in a cooperative partnership with health professionals.
In order to ensure health staff have the skills for this approach, a range of initiatives has been implemented to improve training and orientation including both accredited and non-accredited training. The Department of Health and Community Services is recognised as a major provider of the core training courses in chronic diseases and works closely with education partners including Charles Darwin University, Flinders University and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The GP Divisions and specialist colleges are also important partners in ensuring orientation and maintenance of current knowledge relating to chronic diseases in the NT. Non-government organisations provide postgraduate education for health staff, regularly participating in regional workshops, providing hospital training and, more recently, providing an increased emphasis on targeted training for Aboriginal health workers in diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
To further strengthen this new approach to chronic disease training, NT organisations, including the Department of Health and Community Services, Menzies School of Health Research and AMSANT, work with colleagues from Queensland under a program funded by the Australian government. They have developed a chronic disease curriculum and workforce training resources for primary health care workforce across Northern Australia. This work has been used to further develop chronic disease training in the Northern Territory to improve the Pathways Training program for remote area nurses and to ensure Aboriginal health workers have an effective focus on chronic diseases.
There are further improved training opportunities being explored with the partnership between the Department of Health and Community Services and Charles Darwin University in revising the nursing curriculum. The Northern Territory has been successful in the development of the Chronic Diseases Network which was also set up as a communication tool for stakeholders involved in chronic diseases. The network is steered by a group of government and non-government representatives who give advice and directions to the Chronic Disease Network Coordinator who works with the Preventable Chronic Diseases program in the Department of Health and Community Services.
As a communication networking and educational forum the Chronic Diseases Network produces The Chronicle newsletter published every two months and currently reaching 2000 readers. The network also stages an annual conference. The 10th annual conference held last month in Darwin focused on the need to broaden our engagement with other sectors outside of health in order to meet the challenges that chronic disease prevention and self-management present to us. The conference attracted 240 delegates from across the Territory and the rest of Australia. The high quality of the plenary speakers, with enthusiastic participation by a range of local presenters, ensured effective knowledge sharing.
The conference has a particular emphasis on ensuring the practical skills and strategies are shared to enable the broadest access to quality care. These chronic disease network conferences have been highly successful in attracting a large number of Aboriginal presenters and delegates.
A specific focus in implementing the preventable chronic disease strategy has been on improving the health system, particularly the primary health care system in remote areas. As mentioned previously, Aboriginal people have very high rates of chronic disease and early deaths due to chronic diseases. Effective primary health care and good systems to manage the relationship between primary and hospital and specialist care are critical to reduce complications, hospitalisations and early deaths. In recent years, a number of systems improvements have been put in place. For example, we are improving information and patient review through disease registers, client recall systems, best practice guidelines and care planning in health centres. We are also standardising the delivery of the ‘adult health check’ consistent with Medicare Australia requirements and best practice guidelines.
An accompanying training package has been developed in collaboration with the Top End Division of General Practice and may be used in urban as well as remote services. In addition, audits and subsequent workshopping with health centre teams are improving the quality of their management of diabetes and other chronic diseases, discharge planning from hospitals to community to ensure better coordinated care, and management of clients, standard treatment guidelines in the form of CARPA manuals and the Public Health Bush Book provide public health guidelines for practice.
Finally, information technology is benefiting our patients with improved patient information record systems and secure systems for e-mailing test results and discharge summaries and sharing of patient information using Health Connect. Another example of systems improvements leading to improved health outcomes lies in the management of the oral health treatment needs of people with chronic disease, particularly those requiring surgery. As a result of a more coordinated referral and scheduling program, cancellations of heart valve surgery in interstate hospitals due to the lack of dental treatment has virtually been eliminated in the last 18 months. This is significant in improving outcomes for these patients as well as reducing costs.
I have mentioned the importance of research in informing our delivery of health services. My department is actively engaged in research in a range of areas. One I would like to mention is the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease. The ABCD, as it is called, initially focused on assessing quality improvement approaches for chronic disease prevention and management in 12 Top End communities and was a collaborative project led by the Menzies School of Health Research and departmental staff. This research has now been extended to a national project jointly funded through the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, the Australian government and the Territory, New South Wales and Western Australian governments. Data analysis from the first stage of the project indicates there have been improvements in all key aspects of systems to support chronic illness care in participating health centres.
There have been improvements in delivery of services as well as health outcomes, which will, in the long term, improve the health of clients and reduce the complications of diabetes. This research is directly informing departmental and non-government health services of strategies to improve delivery in chronic disease care. A number of the indictors studied show that remote health staff are achieving results equivalent to and frequently better than the results from services in capital cities. This is a credit to the hard work of remote health staff and demonstrates that focused and sustained effort can achieve significant health gains.
There are a range of other important research projects under way through the CRCAH, Menzies School of Health Research, the Centre for Remote Health, and Charles Darwin University that will have useful findings for my department and other health services. The research involves a range of clinical issues, social issues, reducing risks and developing effective policies. All too frequently, effective service provision lags behind research due to the lack of processes to enable the take-up of the findings.
The Northern Territory is uniquely placed to take up research findings and rapidly incorporate them into routine practice. We have developed a strong culture of using local and international evidence to improve health outcomes in the Northern Territory through involving senior staff, the use of standard treatment guidelines throughout the NT, the development of research agendas with strong input from health professionals and community representatives, and the active use of local research findings.
The community and patients and the families of those suffering chronic disease are critically important to addressing these diseases. Listening to them as well as providing appropriate, effective, targeted information is, therefore, a critical aspect for engaging with these groups. Our non-government partners are particularly important in these aspects due to their community advocacy and support role. I would like to mention in particular a number of community and non-community groups such as Asthma NT, the National Heart Foundation, Healthy Living NT, and the Divisions of General Practice which provide information and support for patients and their families. They also frequently play an important role in professional education and advocacy on chronic disease issues.
One of the Department of Health and Community Services strategies for increasing community awareness and action is the Chronic Disease Storyboard. This is a communication tool that aims to raise awareness and understanding of the impact of chronic disease through storytelling. Encouraging the audience to develop their own stories relating to the impact of chronic diseases is particularly effective in actively engaging people in discussion. The purpose of the Chronic Disease Storyboard is to assist Aboriginal communities and groups to think about the issues that are impacting on their health and to prioritise actions that the community can take to address these issues. This process has been facilitated by the Department of Health and Community Services’ Aboriginal Health Promotion Officers across the Northern Territory. Health Promotion Officers work with community groups, non-government and government health services, and provide training to enable this method to be used broadly.
For long-term illnesses like chronic diseases, research shows that people achieve much improved outcomes and reduced hospitalisation if they develop self-management skills. Self-management is a term now used frequently in chronic disease discussions. It simply means encouraging patients to actively make decisions, along with their doctors and care team, about how best to manage their illness. It is recognition that most of our health care is provided by ourselves through our choice of food, taking of medicines, and so on. This is an area where our non-government partners and the Aboriginal community controlled sector have been providing leadership for the Northern Territory. For example, two large Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, the Katherine West Health Board and Danila Dilba Aboriginal Medical Services, have self-management programs which have provided important strategies for delivering self-management more broadly.
The Department of Health and Community Services and Congress in Alice Springs jointly sponsored training for Central Australian health staff in self-management skills and, along with Health Living NT, are further collaborating in delivering self-management programs in Central Australia. Also, the Arthritis and Osteoporosis NT Foundation provides training in self-management for people with chronic disease, as well as training for health professionals. This is a difficult area and requires a shift in thinking of both health professionals and patients. However, with the active support of these partners and the GP Divisions, I am confident we are moving forward in self-management programs.
In summary, we have done well in reorienting the health system, in particular our primary health care services, to achieve improved service delivery and outcomes. We are seeing improvements in prevention and health promotion, especially in maternal and child health, improved food availability and quality in remote stores, and are implementing more coordinated efforts in tobacco control. We are working with a strong evidence base, drawing on both local and international evidence. Some of our important questions will be answered over the next few years from current local research. We have a strong, integrated non-government sector which works very cooperatively with my department on chronic disease issues. The Aboriginal community-controlled health sector and the GP Divisions are both strongly committed to improving outcomes in chronic diseases and actively support quality improvement processes to achieve this.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there are still many challenges. The burden of chronic disease is still a major problem. We have begun making inroads into the problem, but there is still a great deal more to do. However, I am confident that we are moving in the right direction. I look forward to providing updates on progress in the future.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for presenting the statement today. With his background as a researcher at the Menzies School of Health Research, I notice that there was a significant thread within the statement that appears to have come from the minister personally. I assume that would have come from his background within the Menzies School of Health Research.
Listening to the minister’s statement, I am not sure whether he is talking about chronic diseases amongst Aboriginal people in the Territory, or about chronic diseases across the whole of the Territory, speaking about Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. However, his statement is probably almost all about Aboriginal people and the chronic diseases from which they suffer.
Without a doubt, our health expenditure, particularly in chronic diseases, is pretty high. If you look at the Indigenous Expenditure Review, September 2006, put out by the government just recently, it definitely gives strong indication that chronic diseases feature very strongly in the burden that our indigenous population suffers. For instance, with ischaemic heart disease, it is almost nine times as high as you would find in non-indigenous males, indigenous males having 237.5 per 100 000 population rate - that is the mortality rate - versus 33.1 amongst non-indigenous males. Likewise, with indigenous females: it is 102.7 per 100 000 death rate versus non-indigenous females of 6.2. The list goes on. I refer you to page 29 of the report. Diabetes in indigenous males is 73.6, whereas in non-indigenous males, it is only 3.5. Diseases that feature high in the list include diseases of the liver, other forms of heart disease, and mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use. Those are the five or six major diseases that kill our indigenous Territorians.
However, when you look at the list of those diseases, while they are chronic diseases, they are also lifestyle diseases. Somehow, we need to factor in what can we do with these lifestyle diseases and see if there is any way of influencing their lifestyles so that their health profile improves. I have, for several years now, frequently referred to a manuscript written by Professor John Mathews, the first director of the Menzies School of Health Research. In about 1999, I believe, he wrote the manuscript entitled Historical, Social and Biological Understanding is Needed to Improve Aboriginal Health. I suspect that some of the comments made by the minister in his statement might have come from there as well. What the minister has said about lifestyle diseases and chronic diseases, and the thinking behind the causes and how to rectify the illnesses were reflected by Professor John Mathews in 1999. For those of you who have not read the manuscript - including you, minister, if you have not read it - I strongly encourage you to read that manuscript. I believe it is a very detailed and worthwhile treatise by Professor Mathews, going through the history of our civilisation through to the disadvantage that Aboriginal people in the Territory faced during the last 30 to 50 years, and the slow climb that they have made to gradually improve in their health stance.
Talking about health and about lifestyle and chronic diseases, the first thing we need to consider is: what can we do with our lifestyles? Is there any way we can improve them? I was misquoted a few years ago by the former member for Stuart and the current member for Wanguri when they accused me of saying that Aboriginal people are unclean. What I said was that we all need to attend to our personal and our community hygiene. That is important. For centuries in Europe people did not understand hygiene and that was one of the reasons why the Black Plague caused such devastation in those days. With the understanding of hygiene, both of the individual as well as the community, people’s health improved hugely. That appears not to be the case for all our communities in the Northern Territory nor for many individuals. One of the basic primary health matters that we can encourage and education and disseminate is about hygiene and with that I am sure other things will come along and I will talk about that in a little while.
The minister commented that the federal government has played a major role as well with an increase of funding for primary health care in conjunction with the Northern Territory. He made special reference to his predecessors, the Health ministers, the member for Nightcliff and the former member for Stuart. I would add the former member for Drysdale, the former member for Katherine and the former member for Brennan. They were all Health ministers who played their part in improving health care in conjunction with the federal government.
I am glad to hear the minister say that there is a positive trend, albeit very slow, that the health status of indigenous people and the instance of chronic diseases is slowly improving. So it should. For many years there has been a lot attention paid to try to deal with health before illness sets in and before chronicity of the illness sets in.
When we talk about chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and renal diseases, you need to go back to a person being a baby during the antenatal period when a healthy pregnancy will result in the delivery of a healthy baby without all the precursors such as poor kidneys at birth. Those are things that could actually provide a good start for a newborn and you go from there. Living in communities, water is always an issue. Flies are always a problem. Camp dogs are a major problem whether they are in the urban camps around major centres or, indeed, small communities out in the bush. These dogs carry many infections and have the potential of spreading infection to the children who play in the vicinity, if not with the dogs themselves. The children will then pick up many of the diseases that the dogs carry.
We know that scabies is a major issue. Other bacteria that live in the dirt that the children play in are also major causes of problems, particularly when the skin gets degraded either through physical trauma being in contact with the ground and with the dirt, or being bitten by the scabies mite. We know about the development of skin sores as a result of those forms of injury and the opportunistic way these sores get not so much infected but invaded, I suppose, by the bacteria, particularly staphylococcal. These bacteria lead to not only skin infections, but potentially chronic renal diseases as these infants grow into adulthood.
In referring to Professor Mathews’ manuscript, there is a diagram in the early part of his manuscript which provides a flow chart of how good social cohesion and equity can lead to good health through self-respect, aspiration and responsibility of the individual in a community; through knowledge and resourcing provided within the community and society; and the provision of equitable and accessible education and employment. These all feed into each other, auspiced by good administration and a society that has alcohol and recreational drug use under control; a better environment where there is good food, good housing, and sanitation and water supply leading to good hygiene, with a good administration providing good health service which will lead to freedom from infectious diseases. So with good food, good health service, freedom from infectious diseases, you end up with good health. That is a good concept to develop to then introduce good health for all Territorians.
We have to recognise the history of how indigenous people got there. It was an interesting story that Professor Mathews quoted about the ‘penny gin’ era in Europe where alcohol became the scourge of European society and what that led to in terms of ill health. Unfortunately, we see the same thing occurring in the Northern Territory with the introduction of alcohol into a society that did not have a long and slow socialisation with alcohol, and the abuse of alcohol that came with its introduction led to issues of obesity, liver problems, hypertension and associated problems with that.
The primary health care service the minister talked about obviously has to play a major part in the control of chronic illnesses. However, if the minister recalls, about three or four years ago this government cut back on primary health care funding in preference for funding for acute care in hospitals. There was a huge reaction to that cut. I recall when many senior public servants in the Health department complained, albeit behind closed doors, about the cuts they had suffered and the limitation of programs they could conduct with the lack of funds.
The government should recognise that the department is still trying to catch up. The funding has improved in the last couple of years, but there is still a lot of catch-up to do because of the failure to recognise that primary health care was important. The lack of funds a few years ago caused significant deceleration of the programs that had been going ahead fairly well.
The minister then spoke about programs that he was very pleased with. He spoke about the Chronic Disease Network. I am glad you like that, because it was a program that, in fact, was started under Country Liberal Party government in 1997. It was introduced in response to the documented rising impact of chronic diseases in the Northern Territory and the need to link stakeholders to improve communication and coordination of chronic disease programs and services. Reading from a quote from the website titled Chronic Disease Network, I understand the CDN has 800 members across the nation - and that is terrific - representing 90 government and non-government organisations. That body, with so many organisations and individuals involved, can have great cross-cultivation and sharing of ideas, which is a good way to enable and to assist the Northern Territory in developing good policies to ensure that, in particular, our indigenous Territorians are cared for and to minimise the adverse impacts that chronic diseases might have on their lives and their population.
The minister mentioned The Chronicle, the monthly bulletin which delivers timely updates and summaries on Northern Territory and interstate projects, and also about their annual workshop, the last one carried out in Darwin. I am sure the minister is also aware that there are moves afoot to try to get the workshop interstate and elsewhere, and to also facilitate regional workshops across the Northern Territory. The Chronic Disease Network also has a resource centre, which forms a one-stop shop for information on what is happening in chronic diseases in the Northern Territory. I am sure the Menzies School of Health Research also has a huge input into this because of the specialised type of research that they do on chronic illnesses in the Northern Territory.
I do not know whether the minister heard the radio this morning. The commentator was saying that Aboriginal women have five times as much chance of dying in childbirth than non-Aboriginal women, and that reflects the quality and the quantum of antenatal care that Aboriginal women receive during their pregnancies. While most non-Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory would seek the services of a medical practitioner, if not an obstetrician/gynaecologist, to care for them during the pregnancy, and then to seek the services of a good hospital or birthing suite to have their babies, we know that many indigenous women still do not present themselves for medical or midwifery services until very late in the pregnancy. If you do not get good antenatal care, you miss out on a good diet, you miss out on the issues of blood pressure checks, kidney or bladder infections that might impact on the wellbeing of the mother, thus affecting the baby. We need to spread this information about early antenatal care to all indigenous women, particularly those living in the bush, and how important it is to get good antenatal care so that their pregnancy and the babies will be born in the best condition possible and starting life with the best advantage you can possibly get.
The direct evidence that the minister spoke about is not as evident as it can be. We see some trends happening but, when you look at the number of acute services that have been provided at our general hospitals across the Territory, and notice that patients’ services generated by these hospitals - some 70% to 80% of them - are provided for indigenous people, then you have to say that something is not right. If we are making some impact into chronic illnesses, we are actually getting many acute problems that appear to be occurring in the same people because we have very much a rotating door syndrome. Acute problems occurring in one person will eventually lead to chronicity, as we all know. Therefore, we need to deal with those issues as well, recognise that the frequent presentations in hospitals may give some indication as to what is going on regarding long-term diseases.
We know that renal disease continues to be a problem for us in the Territory. Some 10 years ago, the prediction was that the treatment of renal disease in the Territory may consume more than half the Northern Territory’s entire budget each year. That is a scary thought; that we have so many renal patients in the Territory that half the Territory’s budget would be consumed in the treatment of them. I am pleased - and I say that wholeheartedly - that my concerns about spreading dialysis all across the Territory into bush communities as well have proven to be unfounded. I had great concerns that, by putting dialysis machines out into communities, it might produce more harm than good. However, it has turned out that patients are choosing to stay home, or at least returning home for short spells, with their dialysis machines. It improves their lifestyle and their psychological wellbeing, if nothing else, to be with family and friends in their own homes, and it has worked out. However, having said that, there is obviously a significant cost that has to be borne, and the government has borne it - and so be it. At least the people are benefiting from that.
Let us come back to nutrition. Nutrition is always a major issue. You will recall that in the year 2000, I chaired the Territory Food Price Review. That select committee included the now Deputy Chief Minister. We travelled around the Territory to all regional centres and many remote communities speaking to the store owners or store holders and managers of the stores to see how they managed with the provision of good food out in the bush. Many people do not understand that people on fixed income have, on many occasions, struggled to stretch their fixed income to buy the food they need to survive on. Whether you live in Redfern in Sydney, Salisbury in Adelaide, or out in one of the bush communities, the income support pension is exactly the same, yet you can buy a can of baked beans a lot cheaper in Redfern or Salisbury than you can buy one in Yuendumu, Papunya or Finke. Accordingly, your welfare cheque is not going to be able to buy you as much food as you would in southern locations. Also, fresh food, in particular, out in the bush tends to be less nutritious. They are picked a lot earlier and when they get to the stores, they are not as nourishing as they can be. Food is more expensive because of the spoilage that occurs as the store manager would have to put a higher mark-up on the food to compensate for the spoilage. All those issues mean that it costs more to buy food and you get less for the money you have.
I am sad to say that the program to encourage all stores to stock good, fresh food is not widely followed. I am sorry to say that many stores continue to rip off the people who shop in their shops. There is still a lot of fried food available in those stores. The fast food exists not only in our regional centres with fried chicken or hamburgers and fried dim sims and the like. It would be good to see them taken out the shops altogether and somehow not quite mandate, but at least strongly encourage, stores to have fresh food, fewer drinks with high sugar levels and carbonated drinks. That might help people living out bush to have better food. If you do not have carbonated drinks out there, people just cannot buy them. They have no choice. Maybe that might be the way to do it.
I do not have much time left so I am just going to rush through a little. Minister, you spoke about your personal interest in cutting back on or reducing the abuse of tobacco - I would not say use - in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory continues to receive the Dirty Ashtray Award. You have to work harder to try to stop that. I am glad to see that the government has now proceeded to inspect premises for breaches of smoking within licensed premises and the like. You should take the next step and ensure that your legislation is enforced properly and, maybe, start to look at other premises that ought not allow smoking at all. I have spoken to people in the Good Health Alliance and they are not as encouraged by the actions of your government as they would like to be. I say that you need to work harder at it.
Minister, you also spoke about the Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease project. I understand that this is a project undertaken by the Menzies School of Health Research and it started late last year. I have not had the time to peruse the report they have produced but it appears that it is starting to provide some key lessons and indications of future plans for the government to follow to provide some measures to deal with chronic health. I wish you luck. I would like to see more of this report to tell us how you are progressing with chronic health in the Northern Territory.
In closing, I recommend that you read John Mathews’ manuscript.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the Minister for Health’s statement on chronic disease. In researching the subject of chronic disease, glaringly obvious is the link between chronic disease and obesity.
The US Department of Health and Human Services notes that being overweight or obese raises the risk for Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, angina pectoris, stroke, asthma, osteoarthritis, muscular-skeletal disorders, gall bladder disease, sleep apnoea and respiratory problems, gout, bladder control problems, poor female reproductive health, complications of pregnancy, menstrual irregularities, infertility, irregular ovulation, and cancers of the uterus, breast, prostate, kidney, liver, pancreas, oesophagus, colon and rectum.
Indeed, obesity has been labelled by quite a number of commentators as being of epidemic proportions and, by what I have come to understand, this may well not be the overstatement that I first thought was the case.
As I understand it, Australia comes in third on the obesity scale with approximately 21% of our population obese, which, I might add, is a group that I belong to. The United Kingdom is second with around 22% of its people falling into the obese category, and it will not come as a shock to learn that around 31% of the United States population is categorised as being obese. From 1989 to 2001, the prevalence of obesity in the Australian population increased from 9.5% to 16.7%.
In a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, it was found that as the population got older, it got fatter, particularly in the 45- to 64-year-old range. The good news is that people in the 20- to 24-year-old age range were the least represented in the obesity population. The report highlighted that obesity was more likely to be prevalent in the indigenous population and the proportion of the overall population that has less capacity to earn, including people without post-school qualifications.
These findings surely must send signals to our community in the Territory that we need to do something and we need to do it now. Government is showing leadership through its Northern Territory Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy, but we also must look to ourselves to take charge in improving our own health outcomes by improving our lifestyle, particularly in the areas of exercise and nutrition.
In the Northern Territory, we have a very good network of government and non-government organisations that work tirelessly to help educate and manage survivors and potential candidates for chronic disease. We have the National Heart Foundation Northern Territory which actively promotes healthy lifestyle programs to reduce cardiovascular risk. These include Just Walk It, a series of walking programs; Jump Rope For Heart, a skipping program aimed at schools which promotes not only physical activity but a high level of skill; and a new program is Eat Smart, Play Smart, aimed at after-school programs which provide educational resources for coordinators to these programs. There is the Arthritis and Osteoporosis Northern Territory, the Arthritis Foundation of the Northern Territory Incorporated, which provides support, advocacy, information and education for people affected with osteoporosis and muscular-skeletal diseases. Management also includes the promotion of self-management courses. The organisation also provides education to promote prevention.
Our GP Divisions are very important in supporting improved outcomes in chronic diseases. They have dedicated staff to work with GPs. They have been particularly focused on improving information technology systems within general practice. This is seen as critical in improving information sharing between hospitals, specialists, GPs and pathology services. Effective information sharing will continue to improve outcomes for people with chronic diseases. GP Divisions are supporting implementation of point-to-point, which enables safe transfer of health information via encrypted e-mail. Information technology systems also ensure recall systems function well, which are very important for people with long-term illnesses.
The division will also promote effective brief intervention in general practice through live scripts, which provide practical information on how to make those difficult lifestyle choices; that is, things like quit smoking or lose weight. The Top End Division runs regular educational sessions for practice nurses who are often key members of the GP team for chronic disease programs. They provide immunisations, do routine checks and organise care plans.
Asthma NT is also funded by DHCS. They provide education on both asthma and chronic lung disease for patients and their families. They also provide community education and awareness campaigns. They actively participate in health professional education through the GP Divisions of DHCS. They have collaborated with DHCS and the Education department in developing asthma policies for schools to ensure teachers and other students are aware of asthma and how to manage this effectively.
Healthy Living NT provides diabetes education for individuals and families, community education on diabetes, and health professional education. They are also involved with education about cardiovascular disease, in particular cardiac rehabilitation, which aims to support people who are recovering from acute cardiac events, such as heart attack and heart surgery, and to maintain their heart health. They also provide training and resources for health professionals in cardiac rehabilitation.
Danila Dilba Health Services support the provision of primary health care services to town camp areas in the Darwin and Palmerston areas. The organisation receives the bulk of its funding from the Australian government. The services provided include prevention activities, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of chronic diseases, including client recall systems.
Bagot Community Incorporated, which is the Bagot Health Centre, provides comprehensive primary health care services, primarily to members of the Bagot Community, Minmirama Park and Kulaluk communities. The services provided include prevention activities, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of chronic diseases, including client recall systems.
Within the Department of Health and Community Services, community and primary health care services are provided through the community and primary care stream in Casuarina and Palmerston Community Care Centres. The focus in this stream is on adult health. Activities include prevention, education and health promotion, as well as the treatment and management of a range of chronic diseases. The service is used as a primary health care framework which supports client engagement, empowerment and self-management. It also actively engages in the development of collaborative partnerships with other providers in the urban environment. Staff have received training in early and brief intervention and chronic disease management. Prevention is also supported through the provision of immunisations through the Northern Territory schedule, support for clients diagnosed with chronic disease or diseases. It also occurs through activities such as school vaccinations to at risk clients.
The Child, Youth and Family Health service stream provides a range of services around the prevention and early intervention of chronic diseases. These include the home birth services in the monitoring, education and prevention of causal lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol and nutrition, to promoting the best health outcomes for the newborn. Child and Family Nursing Services support education and information on breastfeeding and infant feeding, attachment, health and developmental assessment, and education and advice to parents and families on preventative lifestyle factors. Health promoting school nurses provide education, support and information on health promoting practices in areas such as alcohol and other drugs, social and emotional wellbeing, nutrition, physical activity, and reproductive and sexual health. DHCS nutrition staff also provide individual education and counselling, but particularly focus on group education through health services, schools and town camps. They have worked closely with the Education department to introduce school canteen policies, promoting healthy foods for school children, especially reducing high fat and sugar foods.
This leads me on to the subject of childhood obesity. Longitudinal studies in Brisbane have found that fat babies or infants become fat children, fat adolescents and fat adults. Obesity in children can be caused by a number of factors, such as genetics or lifestyle, or a combination of unhealthy eating patterns and lack of physical activity. Members only need to make a casual observance when they go shopping, and I am pretty sure they will see children, with or without their parents, eating chips and soft drinks or tucking into ice creams and donuts. I would hazard a guess that they will not see too many children eating a piece of fruit or a sandwich.
Childhood obesity is, in itself, a major social problem and was the reason for a summit held by the New South Wales government in 2002. In the context of this statement on chronic disease, it is relevant to note that one of the findings of this summit was that children who were overweight or obese are more likely in the short term to develop gastrointestinal, endocrinal, or certain orthopaedic problems than children of normal weight, and are more likely in the longer term to develop cardiovascular disease. To overcome or combat the tendency towards excess weight or obesity, it is recommended that children decrease time spent watching television or playing video games, that the family needs to be encouraged to take up activities that are enjoyable for all, and that children and their friends are encouraged to participate in organised sport. It is important to note that while this may be the recommended course of action for children of school age, it is not necessarily the best option for preschool children.
A recent study in the British Medical Journal of children with an average age of 4.2 years led to the conclusion that children who are involved in an active play program are more likely to improve their motor skills rather than lose weight. However, this improvement in motor skills could lead to increased physical activity and a smaller waistline in the future.
What then does the opposition have to say about Leanyer Recreation Park? As members will recall, the CLP opposition was scathing in their attacks on this great family facility right from the start. In line with their attitude to other health initiatives that the Martin Labor government has introduced into our community, the CLP heaped ridicule upon ridicule, saying the development of the Leanyer Recreation Park was a waste of taxpayers’ money. You only have to go past Leanyer Recreation Park any day of the week to see how right the Territory government was and how wrong was the CLP. The irony of having one of their candidates run their campaign advertisements featuring the park was not lost on me or the constituents of Sanderson. Why I bring Leanyer Recreation Park into this debate is because families with preschool children use this park quite a lot. Whenever I visit, I am sure to see mums and dads, grandparents and carers there, with their little kids running around the park, playing on the swings, enjoying the water features, or learning to ride their first bike.
This is what the British Medical Journal was on about. Those children who do this sort of activity have more chance of being active and carrying less weight than those kids who are not encouraged to get out into the fresh air and move about. I take the members back to the observation made earlier: fat babies or infants become fat children, fat adolescents and fat adults. Fat adults are more likely to suffer from chronic disease than adults in a healthy rate range.
Physical inactivity is not the only factor that leads to childhood obesity; diet has a lot to do with it as well. Children should be encouraged to limit their intake of junk foods and soft drinks. Parents need to work with their children and develop good eating habits based on healthy food options. Water needs to be the drink of choice for a thirsty child. These are things that parents need to commit to if they want their children to have a better quality of life in the long term: a healthy breakfast, eating as a family, and not using food as either a reward or punishment are things that we all can do. Unfortunately, we all do not.
I know that the government has a role to play in helping to reduce the number of people suffering from chronic disease. I have heard in recent weeks the member for Blain in the media about how the CLP would legislate what foods school canteens can sell to kids. The member for Blain backed up his call for this legislation with a colour coded food labelling system, suggesting red for occasional food that should only be sold twice a term; amber foods you select carefully so that these foods should be avoided in large serving sizes; and green-labelled food should be encouraged and promoted in school canteens. A good idea, member for Blain, but I wish you had gone that one step further and given schools the option to contact the New South Wales School Canteen Association, from where you ripped off the idea, so that you could see how to manage this great idea without the fear of taking away the right from parents and children, and that school canteens would fold because nobody would buy peanut butter and celery sticks.
I will just get away from the chronic disease for a moment because, this morning, the member for Blain made a personal explanation where he said:
- Although the minister was wrong to suggest it is the only CLP policy in relation to education, this is not the most offensive thing he said. What is most offensive and incorrect is any suggestion the CLP and, by inference, I as the portfolio holder, plagiarised the policy. The opposition Healthy Eating School Canteen policy …
I will say that again - Healthy Eating School Canteen Policy:
- … was developed after careful research of both international and national models, and written specifically for application in Territory school communities. It included education and implementation details.
I looked at the CLP site and I cannot find the policy. That aside, he tells me that is his policy. However, I did go to the website www.health.nsw.gov.au/obesity/adult/canteens - bit familiar! - and there is a media release: ‘Premier Launches New South Wales Health School Canteen Strategy’:
- The impetus for the NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy came from the NSW Government Childhood Obesity Summit held in September 2002.
…
- School canteens are one of the major take away food markets in the state with about 2700 schools providing a canteen service. There are in excess of 3200 schools in NSW …. A child who regularly purchases breakfast, snacks and lunch from the school canteen consumes a substantial portion of their daily intake from this source.
Then it goes on to say:
- The … NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy …
- Red ‘occasional’ ...
Oh yes?
- … do not sell these foods.
Amber ‘select carefully’ …
Green ‘fill the menu’ …
Mr Acting Speaker, I will table that too because, member for Blain, you can cut and paste it on to your website. There you are. Just attribute where it comes from, that is all. I seek leave to table these documents.
Leave granted.
Mr KIELY: I took the member for Blain’s suggestion about the healthy eating to one of my school councils. When they met they were responsive to improving the menu for their children, but they were dead against being told what to do by government. This good idea has been soured because the member for Blain could not or would not let on that the idea was not his. If he had been honest …
Mr Mills: I never said it was my idea.
Mr KIELY: … and attributed the idea to where it rightly belonged, and directed school councils to the NSW School Canteen Association’s website, we might have had a more positive result. This is shameful politics and you have been caught out, member for Blain.
There are other programs in other jurisdictions being implemented that the member for Blain might like to champion as long as he does not feel threatened to disclose that they are not new and not something unique to the all-caring CLP. I would like to suggest to him a walking school bus. This is something I believe government should get involved in and it is something that I took up with the previous minister for Education some while ago. The idea of the walking school bus was not mine and it actually came from some parents and teachers at Anula Primary School. In essence, kids walk a designated route to school and are chaperoned by two adults. Children join the walk along the way so there is that added peace of mind that parents now want in this day and age. It is also a good exercise machine. As I understand it, DEET has been undertaking a thorough investigation of this idea and has identified a number of hurdles that may need to be overcome before they will consider such a program. These hurdles are things like police checks of the adults, training, and liability as well as being able to guarantee the sustainability of the program. I am hopeful that they will because I can think of no finer way for kids to start the day than to walk to school.
Much is said about childhood obesity but we, as a community, are also on the precipice of an increase in obesity rates for our ageing population. The increases are having significant impacts on the number of people with chronic disease. Issue 12 of Australian government’s Australian Institute of Health and Welfare bulletin dealing with obesity trends in older Australians is well worth the read. Straightaway the reader is drawn to the statement that Australians have put on a lot of weight during the past 20 years. This is a serious situation because of the strong link between excess body weight and various chronic health problems that continue into our older age. We are living longer, getting fatter and getting sicker. The implications for our health system are enormous.
We can see here in the Territory, and across Australia, the challenge of recruiting health staff to meet the demand for hospital admissions and outpatient caseload. This is the challenge that we are meeting better than most jurisdictions largely due to 64% increase in the health budget and the hundreds of extra hands-on health professionals this government has employed since coming to office. More and more federal, state and territory health budgets are being challenged by demand and it is not getting any less.
Older Australians - and that means people 55 and above – have, on average for men, gained 8 kg more than what they weighed 20 years earlier, and women over the corresponding period have gained 12 kg. Men and women are now no longer losing weight as they are getting older. Over the last 20 years, our nation has seen a tripling of the number of aged people who are obese. The number is now estimated to be close to one million individuals. The reason given for this is the dietary over-consumption of energy and a decrease in physical activity. Excess weight in older people can and does lead to chronic disease such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and just about the whole range of diseases that I mentioned earlier.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the Assembly that while we, as a community, are facing quite a challenging situation, on an individual level the activity of our senior Territorians is to be applauded. Every Tuesday you can go to the Darwin Golf Club, which I might say is in the electorate of Sanderson, and catch up with around 100 or so senior Territorians as they play competition golf. I have met quite a number of these players and had the good fortune to sponsor a competition or two courtesy of the efforts of the club captain to squeeze a few bob out of their local MLA. These golfers keep themselves in good health and are role models for all senior Territorians. The captain, Harry Cohen, a long-time Territorian and ex-Department of Justice executive officer, is somewhere around the 70 mark. He is fit, healthy and, at a glance or even up close and being scrutinised, his age is hard to pick. This is unusual amongst this group of Territorians. If ever an advertisement for senior Territorians keeping active is required by any organisation I suggest they go to Darwin Golf Club any Tuesday for that is where they will find the role models.
An ageing population is something new to us in the Territory. For years, it was almost always the case with the exception of older families like the Bonsons, the Cubillos and the Chins, and all those old families and all the other fifth generation Territorians, that when you reached retirement it was off to Queensland or Western Australia. We did not really have too many older people around and about our streets. This was for a range of reasons, mostly I feel due to lack of extended family, cost of living on fixed income, and the harder environmental living conditions. We now appear to have overcome many of these factors and we are seeing first and second generation Territorians staying. Our families are growing and we have to a large extent overcome our inability to stay comfortable during the build-up. This trend has manifested itself into a greater workload on our health system, and I applaud government for the approaches it has taken to come to grips with the increase in chronic diseases.
Mr Acting Speaker, we have a long, hard road ahead of us in the management of chronic disease in the Territory. We can see now that people are sitting up and taking note of what they can do to help themselves lead a better quality of life in old age by addressing lifestyle changes in their early and more active years.
Mr WARREN: Mr Acting Speaker, I move a the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr KIELY: This lesson has not been lost on me. Over the last year, two good friends whom I have known since my teenage years have had heart attacks. One of them lives in Alice Springs and the other in Darwin and both were full of praise for the support they received from our health system and from organisations like Healthy Living NT.
I am aware of my weight issues and I am starting to modify my lifestyle to bring about a slow but sustainable program of weight loss. I do this for my family and for myself. I will also be helping our community if I can keep myself free from chronic disease. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend the minister on his statement.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Speaker, chronic disease is a most relevant and important matter in my electorate of Stuart and to many Central Australians. Reflecting on the minister’s speech, for me, the most significant point he made was that we can prevent chronic disease and many of its associated complications. This is a message that we need to reinforce in the community.
I often feel that we in the community focus too much on the treatment aspect of a sickness and not what causes it and how we can prevent it. I was pleased to hear the minister say that we are starting to make a difference, but that we cannot be complacent about these improvements. I acknowledge the good news in health, with the improvements to indigenous womens’ life expectancy and the reduction in indigenous infant mortality rates. As the new member for Stuart and a member of this government, I am committed to making a difference in reducing chronic disease amongst the people of Stuart and all Territorians.
What is chronic disease? As the minister stated, it includes diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, renal disease and chronic lung disease. When I heard the minister define what chronic disease included, I immediately thought about many of my indigenous constituents and family members. I am personally committed to making a difference because as an Aboriginal Territorian, I know only too well the devastating effect chronic disease has on the individual, family and community. Reading from a medical journal recently, I quote:
- There are too many funerals. Too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women die too early.
I am sure my colleagues from the bush can relate to this statement. As I mentioned in my maiden speech last Tuesday, only 10 weeks ago my youngest son was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. A natural response and feeling from my wife and me was to blame ourselves and ask the question: ‘Why us?’ We live a healthy life, we have two other sons who are very active, and we have been involved in sport all our lives. These emotions and feelings, I would imagine, are similar to those of anyone else suffering from a chronic disease.
Add to this feeling of despair the feeling of homesickness, and the problem for bush people increases. For governments and health organisations, this issue not only falls back onto how the service is delivered but also requires a whole-of-government and whole-of-community approach to reduce the current levels of sickness. The psychological impact on the individual and the family of a chronic disease sufferer needs to also be recognised and supported, if it is not already, through hospital counsellors or liaison officers.
As an example of this, I have a very close friend and relative from Yuendumu who has had to go onto kidney dialysis in Alice Springs. Experiencing firsthand the effects it has had on him personally and his family is a big concern. Having to relocate from his home town to Alice Springs has been a big change in his and his family’s lifestyle. I am interested to find out which members of our community are more likely to suffer from a chronic disease. My initial thoughts lean towards those most disadvantaged and those on low income levels. If this is the case, we need to look carefully at how all levels of government and organisations are delivering their health systems. I would like to see education for bush people about the impact of sleeping and cooking around the open fire. It would be interesting to find out what impact there is to the respiratory condition of these people over a long period of time.
I am proud to be a member of this government, because this government is leading the nation in the fight against chronic disease. The Territory’s Building Healthier Communities framework and the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy demonstrate that this government has a plan and is serious about working towards improving the health of all Territorians. In fact, as the minister has stated, the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy was the first in Australia to include birth outcomes and infant nutrition as a preventative component of an adult chronic disease strategy. This is very important because of the Territory’s growing young indigenous population.
Another pet area of mine is men’s health. I am pleased to hear from the minister that men’s health programs will be commencing soon in the communities of Ti Tree and Nyirripi in my electorate. I am aware of the men’s forums that are currently being held through Central Australia, and I will be catching up with many of the men in the near future to find out what issues were discussed at these forums.
The strategies and programs that the minister has spoken about in this statement form a very strong platform to deal with chronic disease. This government has also delivered on improving the standard of health centres and clinics in the bush. In my electorate of Stuart, there are numerous projects that will greatly enhance communities and help organisations’ ability to improve health outcomes related to chronic disease. I would like to mention some of these projects: an upgrade to the Yuendumu Clinic; new refrigerated airconditioning systems installed at Nyirripi Clinic; extensions to the Pigeon Hole Clinic; extensions to create a health promotion and educational area at the Ti Tree Clinic; relocation of the men’s centre to the clinic to provide culturally appropriate access for men at the Yarralin community; a new clinic opened in July 2006 at Yuendumu; and a new clinic due to commence construction in April 2007 at Kalkarindji.
There are many health organisations leading the way in the Northern Territory as well. In my electorate, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, Katherine West Health Board, Urapuntja Health Services in the Utopia region, and WYN health, which takes in the communities of Willowra, Yuendumu and Nyirripi, are just a few of them that are worth mentioning. All of these health services have strong and capable indigenous members who represent the communities in their service region.
I would like to share with the House a couple of recent success stories in the Northern Territory. Many of you may have heard on ABC radio last week a story on what researchers from the University of Melbourne have discovered. The communities in the Utopia region have a mortality rate almost 40% lower than the Northern Territory’s indigenous average. The success that has been achieved through the Utopia region is no surprise to us on this side of the House, and is best summed up by local, Ricky Tilmouth. I fully support what Ricky Tilmouth said in this story, that all politicians and policymakers should stand up and take notice. The Urapuntja outstation model, one of the first areas returned to traditional owners under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, dispels the myths spread by the federal minister, Mal Brough, that outstations are unviable. In fact, the Urapuntja outstation model proves that myth wrong and demonstrates quite practically that outstations are more than viable in the context of delivering outstanding health results.
The other success story is the community of Galiwinku, in my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate. The community of Galiwinku on Elcho Island off the north coast held a festival recently. As the article in the Northern Territory News on 9 October stated: ‘The community has turned poor health outcomes around’. The community invited the Menzies School of Health Research in Darwin to Galiwinku to listen and assist the community with their concerns. The most important thing that happened after the research and screening was that the community worked together with the store and school in promoting a healthier lifestyle. Community stores are a vital part of our remote and urban communities.
In my electorate, there are also good signs of stores taking up the challenge with the rest of the community in promoting and selling healthy foods and promoting healthy lifestyles. The Ampilatwatja community store has been a trailblazer in this field, and they have previously won the Best Store Award in the Tidy Towns competition.
As I said earlier, it is a whole-of-community, whole-of-government approach in the fight against chronic disease. I would like to mention my interest in sport which also plays an important part. As we have heard from other speakers, diet and nutrition are very important factors in wiping out this disease. Obviously, the interest in my electorate is AFL football, and we must promote this with education and housing in the fight against chronic disease.
As I said last week, the biggest challenge for the Northern Territory is bringing the people of the bush with the rest of the Territory. We need to show the bush that they have to have a stake in building the society that makes up the Northern Territory. The results clearly show that when indigenous Territorians have an equal amount of control over their health, there are improved results. I believe traditional doctors, bush foods and medicines need to be kept as an equal part of our Territory health system, particularly in our remote communities.
In conclusion, Mr Acting Speaker, I look forward to further improvements in this area of reducing chronic disease amongst all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I table the Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006.
MOTION
Print Paper - Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Print Paper - Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Note Paper - Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office 2006
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, I am pleased to table the August 2006 Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office Strategic Review Report. Section 26 of the Audit Act requires that a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office be conducted every three years. Consistent with recently established practice, arrangements were made for the review to be conducted by a senior member of the staff of an interstate Auditor-General’s Office. This approach was supported by the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Territory Auditor-General, as it is required by the Audit Act. As a result, Mr Glen Clarke, Executive Director of the Western Australian Office of Auditor-General, was appointed to undertake the review.
I am pleased to advise the House that the review has concluded that, overall, the Auditor-General’s Office is operating in an efficient and effective manner. The review has also identified opportunities for improving the office’s operations including considering how the structure and layout of reports to parliament could be revised to make them more user friendly, and seeking advice on performance management system audits and the scope that they may take.
The review has also identified that, while revenue for the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office has increased at a rate comfortably above inflation, the office costs have risen at a rate greater than this. This is primarily due to the increasing commercial rates of private sector firms contracted to conduct audits. In recognition of this, the office’s retained revenue will increase for 2006 and, further, following consultation with the Northern Territory Auditor-General, the office’s budget has been increased by a further $200 000 for this financial year 2006-07 to ensure that price increases will not jeopardise the ability of the Auditor-General to fulfil his role.
The Auditor-General has noted the recommendations of the strategic review, provided written comments on the key findings and recommendations, and has undertaken to consider them in the next round of planning. I am tabling his comments for the Assembly.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
ANSWER TO QUESTION
Public Service Numbers
Public Service Numbers
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Speaker, earlier today the member for Blain asked me how many public servants there were without substantive positions in the Northern Territory Public Service - that is so-called supernumeraries - and what they cost. The Commissioner for Public Employment advises me that, as at the end of September, there were 15 874 FTEs - that is full-time employees - including Power and Water. Of these, 80% have an allocated number in the personnel information system known as PIPS, and approximately 20% do not; that is, those who are classified as supernumerary.
The Commissioner of Public Employment has advised me that the term ‘supernumerary’ has no substantive application in relation to a Northern Territory public servant’s status, job security or entitlements, and has not had since the early 1990s. Since that date, the number and level of staff has been determined not by an establishment but by an agency CEO provided it fell within the agency budget. There are many reasons for staff to be recorded as supernumerary including short-term employment, long-term leave in excess of 12 months, short-term funding from another source such as the Commonwealth government, short-term operational needs, a job number not being created in PIPS for administrative reasons, and a very small number of displaced officers.
The allocation of a job number in PIPS or otherwise has no application in relation to the public servant’s job status, security or entitlements. The Commissioner for Public Employment advises me that it is inconsequential whether a public servant has a job number in PIPS. These employees have real jobs and are delivering real services. As for cost, the allocation of job numbers in PIPS or otherwise does not give rise to any additional cost.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Speaker, tonight I contribute on two important issues within my electorate and within the community of Darwin.
One occurred on Tuesday, 17 October 2006, and it was recognition of the all-time Darwin Basketball League record for the number of games which has been broken by none other than Alex Hamriding of the Warriors Club. The Darwin Airport Resort DBL club player, Alex Hamriding of the Warriors, on Tuesday, 17 October, in the game against Razzle Storm reached basketball game played milestone for male player in the Darwin Basketball League since records have been kept. Before being in this position to achieve the record, he was equal with the retired Jeff Larson on 528 games. Jeff Larson was a local legend in basketball and a well-known local identity. Since Alex commenced his senior career in Darwin in 1987, besides his present club Warriors, his playing longevity has seen him play for Tracy Village Jets, South Darwin, Pioneer Pints, Eagles Mitsubishi now Razzle Storm, Lightning and Warriors, now the Warriors Club.
During his playing career in Darwin, he was on the winning side for two DBL championships and also played with the two Northern Territory championship winning club sides. In 1991, some 15 years ago, he won the MVP Trophy for the championship season.
In 1990, he went on tour to the United States with the Under 20 NT team. He tells some great stories from that and his opportunities to travel around America and see players in the NBA competition.
From 1993 to 1995, he left Darwin to play in Victoria with the Gippsland Lightning ABA side. This year, he showed the youngsters that he could still mix it with the best when he played for the Darwin representative team in an exhibition game against the Hoops for Health team, the team which had several players with NBL and/or ABA playing experience.
Last season, his Warriors team took out both the Challenge Season Cup and the Pepsi Max Pre-season Cup. During the present championship season, Warriors are again the team to knock off from their position on top of the table and are strong favourites to take out the Darwin Airport Resort DBL Cup.
Throughout his DBL career leading up to achieving his playing record this week, he had scored 6601 points at 12.4 points per game and has achieved a game high score of 46 points. Alex Hamriding, or Big Al as he is known, is also a phenomenal rebounding machine and consistently would have reached double figures during that period of time.
I say ‘well done’ to Alex Hamriding on his achievement and may he continue to keep building on his games played record. He was supported by his wife Simone and two boys, and his team mates Tim, Doug and Bo Wilson, Glenn Worrier, Jim Boekel, John Cuthbertson, Liam Devine, Matthew Bonson, trainer Bernie Devine, trainer JJ Michael Lew Fat and manager Robert Williams.
Alex is not only a quality basketball player, but a quality person. He has the ability to encourage his team mates, play a team game, and his record in winning games is something of which he is very proud. I wish Alex all the best and hope that he wins the season ahead.
The other matter I would like to speak about is a function I attended on Tuesday, 17 October for the launch of a book called Steve Abala Top End Sporting Role Models Northern Territory 1947 to 2006. Only someone like Ted Egan could come up with a conceptual idea like this and, with the help of none other than Aunty Sally Abala-McDowell, they came up with this great idea of recognising Steve Abala, Aunty Sally’s father, who sadly passed away in a tragic accident on the rugby field many years ago.
This book is a who’s who of Darwin sporting identities. I am proud that some of my family members are represented in it, but not only my family members, but many local family identities through many different generations are. I would like to run through some of them.
This book has recipients of the Inaugural Top End Steve Abala Role Model Awards: 1947, Gabe Hazelbane; 1948, Dot Durack; 1949, Ron Chin; 1950, Jane Garlil Christopherson; 1951, Steve Abala; 1952, Irene Kemp; 1952, Keith Kemp; 1953, Joe Sarib; 1954, Sadie McGinness-Ludwig; 1955, Ray Lee; 1956, Jocelyn Wu Sellers; 1957, Bill Roe; 1958, Irene Larkin; 1959, Frank Geddes; 1960, Cecily Muir; 1960, Harold Muir; 1961, John Bonson; 1961, Ted Cooper; 1962, Rose Damaso; 1963, Bernie Lew Fat; 1963, Terry Lew Fat; 1964, Rowena Stroud; 1965, Joe Bonson and Don Bonson as well as Vicki Bonson; 1966, Dottie Daby; 1967, David Kantilla; 1968, Audrey Kennon; 1968, Ron Smith; 1969, Michael Ah Mat; 1969, Joe Clarke – and it was great having a yarn with Joe on the day; he was very proud to be participating; 1970, Maisie Austin; 1971, Bill Dempsey; 1972, Aunty Kathy Nichols; 1973, John ‘Bubba’ Tye; 1974, Julie Brimson; 1975, Kevin Jurek; 1976, Louisa Collins; 1977, Bill Ravenswood; 1978, Bev Sinclair; 1979, Jimmy Conway; 1980, Christine Koulouriotis; 1981, Steven Bowditch; 1982, Karmie Dunn Sceney; 1983, Shane Bannan; 1984, Laurel Parker; 1985, Ralph Wiese; 1986, Coral Quinell; 1987, Graeme McGufficke; 1987, Doug Kelly; 1988, Lesley Sullivan; 1989, Clive Baxter; 1990, Vicki Lew Fat; 1991, Ken Anderson; 1992, Debbie Halprin; 1993, Michael McLean; 1994, Beth Quinlan; 1995, Michael Long; 1995, Noel Long; 1996, Nova Peris; 1997, George Voukolas; 1998, Sarah Cooper; 1999, Ken Vowles; 2000, Kerry Dienelt; 2001, Mark Hickman; 2002, Jan Palazzi; 2003, David Bates; 2004, Kelly Fong; 2005, George Owen; and 2006, Wendy Bury.
The committee was made up of very well-known local identities and comprised His Honour the Administrator, Ted Egan AO, Dennis Booth, Paul Cattermole, Dottie Daby, Bob Elix, Sadie McGuinness-Ludwig and Sally Abala-McDowell. I encourage all members to purchase this fantastic book, which tells the history of sport and local identities over the last 50 years in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Top End.
It was a magnificent event to attend and, no doubt, each year it will become a highlight of the calendar. I suggest that everyone in the Chamber attend. Without any further ado, I recommend that all members have a look at this book and ensure that these heroes and role models of the past are recognised properly in the history of Darwin and the Northern Territory.
_______________________
Visitors
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to welcome family members of the late John ‘Colie’ Coleman in the Speaker’s Gallery. I would like to acknowledge Paddy Coleman, Gary and Duffy Coleman and their sons, Justin and Mick. You are warmly welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Speaker, the Northern Territory has lost another Territory icon. John ‘Colie’ Coleman, the patriarch of the Coleman family and founder of the Northern Territory News and Colemans Printing. I also add my welcome to the Coleman family who are here tonight. John was born in Mullumbimby, northern New South Wales in 1913, with his childhood years spent in and around the Tweed Valley. John left school at the tender age of 14 to become an apprentice printer. Even then, printing was in his blood. John served his apprenticeship in Queensland and was also recognised as a star Rugby League player, one of the highlights including representing Central Queensland in intrastate matches and playing first grade for South Brisbane.
John first arrived in Darwin in 1937 to work for the Northern Standard. As his son, Gary, affectionately recalls: ‘There was a printers strike at the Courier Mail and Dad was always a bit of a left winger. The management in Brisbane thought it was best to transfer him to Darwin. He became more of a moderate in the 1960s but there was always something of a leftie in him’.
While John was working for the Northern Standard during World War II, he had a close call. The story goes that a hangover saved his life. John had an appointment with the Postmaster-General at 10 am but, due to the hangover, he was running late. As John walked out of the Northern Standard building with proofs under his arm, the bombs – it was 19 February 1942 – started to rain down on the city. John had a lucky escape but, regrettably, all those in the Darwin Post Office on that fateful day were killed. John was evacuated to Brisbane, joined the Navy, and spent time serving in both the Pacific and New Guinea.
It was during this time that John met and married Dorothy. John returned to Darwin after the war and the hunt was on for suitable accommodation so that Dorothy and their two young daughters, Jacqlynne and Jill, could join them from Brisbane. Houses were in short supply after the war and John had heard, via health authorities, that a house in Cavenagh Street could be available. The only problem was that a number of people were squatting illegally. John and a couple of mates tackled the squatters and the family home was found - 88 Cavenagh Street - where the family was completed with the addition of Paddy and Gary.
John started his printing company of J R Coleman in 1948. In 1952, the name was changed to the Northern Territory News Services Limited and, along with business partners, John has the distinction of publishing the first edition of the Northern Territory News on Friday, 8 February 1952, an original copy of which is treasured by the family to this day. After the Northern Territory News was firmly established and successful, John left the newspaper industry and, with Dorothy, purchased an ice-cream shop in Mitchell Street West. The shop was known as Colemans Cash Store, with the catchy slogan, ‘If you can eat it or drink it, Colemans have it’.
However, printing was still John’s lifeblood and, after three years in the shop, he entrusted the shop to his wife and restarted his printing company, J R Coleman. It is a tribute to both John and Dorothy that both businesses ran for over 20 years, with J R Coleman being the forerunner for Colemans Printing.
John was also an excellent host, and invited friends and business people back to their home. On one particular occasion, John offered the guest a lift home. The guest said, ‘I don’t think so, John. I live in Melbourne’, to which John packed a pair of socks, underpants and a bottle of Scotch and they both set off to Melbourne.
During the 1950s and 1960s and early 1970s, John was either a founding or an active member of various organisations including the Darwin Club, the Darwin Turf Club, Darwin Golf Club, Darwin Bowls Club, Darwin Rotary Club, Darwin Trailer Boat Club and Waratahs Club. Darwin’s first post-war council was elected in 1957 and John stood for the position of mayor, losing by a very narrow margin to the first mayor of Darwin, local builder, Bill Richardson.
John’s legacy lives on to this day, with Colemans Printing operating from modern premises next door to where the family home was, and under the guardianship of his grandsons, Tony, Justin and Michael.
It is visionaries and characters such as John Coleman, who had the belief and confidence in the Territory’s future, who continue to inspire us all. To his family members here tonight, our sincere condolences. John lived a long, productive life here in the Territory. The Colemans are a great Territory family and will continue to contribute to community and business life in the Territory. It is lovely to have an opportunity to remember John ‘Colie’ Coleman.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Johnson): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to talk about the dedication of the National Police Memorial in Canberra last month. I had the honour of attending the dedication. The National Police Memorial is a permanent tribute to those Australian police officers who have lost their lives as a result of their duties. The memorial was unveiled by Prime Minister John Howard at an evening ceremony on 29 September, Police Remembrance Day.
There are nine Territory policemen commemorated on the memorial. They are: Mounted Constable John Shirley, who died in 1883 while Officer-in-Charge of the police station at Barrow Creek. Mounted Constable Shirley died of thirst while tracking down a group of murderers. Because the Territory was administered by South Australia at the time, Mounted Constable Shirley is listed on the memorial as a South Australian police officer.
The other eight policemen listed as Territorians are: Mounted Constable Albert McColl, who was speared to death on Woodah Island in 1933; Constable Max Gilbert, who died in a motor accident in 1948 while escorting a prisoner to Alice Springs; Constable William Condon, who was killed by a gunman in Katherine in 1952; Inspector Lou Hook, who died in a motor accident near Pine Creek in 1967; Sergeant Colin Eckert, who died in 1970 in a head-on collision near Katherine while returning from prisoner escort duty; Senior Constable Allen Price, who died of a heart attack while trying to quell a disturbance in Mataranka in 1981; Detective Sergeant Ian Bradford, who died in 1984 when a police vehicle in which he was passenger was driven over the edge of Fort Hill wharf in Darwin; and Brevet Sergeant Glen Huitson, who was killed by a gunman on the Stuart Highway in 1999.
The human tragedy that lies behind these names and dates was driven home during the dedication ceremony when Glen Huitson’s children, 10-year-old Joseph and eight-year-old Ruby, lit a candle of remembrance on behalf of all those Territory families who have lost a loved one in the line of duty.
It was my privilege while in Canberra to meet members of the families of some of these fallen Territory police officers. The familles were flown to Canberra by NT Police Legacy, which provides assistance to surviving spouses and dependent children of deceased police officers. I acknowledge all those on the Police Legacy Board of Management, in particular Superintendent Anne-Marie Murphy, who did so much to ensure that the families were looked after during their time in Canberra. The Police Association deserves recognition as a driving force behind the memorial, as well as a significant financial contributor towards its $2.4m cost. The Retired Police Association has also been a supporter throughout.
The NT Police sent a delegation of 39 personnel to Canberra headed by Commissioner Paul White. They stood out in their khaki uniforms and were afforded the great honour of having Sergeant Garry Casey selected to command the catafalque party. The ceremony also saw the new Northern Territory Police flag raised for the first time. It is a stunning flag, with the police emblem superimposed on the ochre and black Territory flag. It was designed by Superintendent David Pryce and made by Ron Strachan.
There are many people who deserve thanks for their efforts, but it would be particularly remiss not to acknowledge Deputy Commission Bruce Wernham for his work on the steering committee which guided the development of the memorial. The memorial is in Kings Park on the north side of Lake Burley Griffin. The focal point is the memorial wall containing 1200 bronze plaques; with 721 plaques inscribed with the name of a police officer who has died in the line of duty. The remaining 479 plaques are blank, a sobering reminder of the dangers faced by police officers on a daily basis.
Tonight, I place on the record my appreciation for the contribution to sport, thoroughbred and greyhound racing, in particular, of Dennis Booth.
Dennis was a long-time Northern Territory News journalist who retired last week. Dennis was a former sports editor of the Northern Territory News. He had a number of stints at the Northern Territory News, the first of them under legendary editor, Jim Bowditch. Dennis went on to carve out a formidable reputation in the Darwin community in his days with the news. Although he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the racing game, Dennis reported on just about every sport in Darwin. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s there were times when he virtually wrote the sport section of the NT News single-handedly. As a result, he was probably one of the best known figures in town. While he was known variously as Doggie, and Bunnie Booth, largely as a result of his association with greyhound racing, most people simply called him Boothie.
As Racing minister, I thank Dennis for his contribution to the local racing industry which he clearly loved so much. I wish him well in his retirement. It is noteworthy that I think everyone in this House has noticed all the effusive farewells for Dennis Booth, all the functions, all the talk, all the stories in the paper about his wonderful career and his wonderful contribution to sport over a long time.
I am sure everyone in this House joins with me in wishing Boothie all the best for the future. To be honest, I do not think he will be able to do without the Territory for a sustained time. I would not be surprised to see him back for a few stints, and we would love to see you back here, Dennis. So, all the best in your retirement and thanks once again for all the great articles, all the great humour and all the great tips.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support the comments made by the member for Johnston. A fine fellow, and I agree that I reckon we will see Dennis Booth back. I have seen him depart before and return. It is just tremendous and a great credit to a man that has that kind of response on a sustained level through the local media. Good on you, Dennis.
I would like to continue comments that have been made over a recent period of time related to nutrition and school programs. It is an ongoing issue within this nation and it is a fairly challenging one because it speaks to levels of affluence and how we manage that affluence. The consequences of that affluence are seen in a negative way in the health of our young people and it is going right through our population.
The report that was presented today, a very well-presented and a timely report, shows us quite clearly we have issues of an economic nature that will impact upon us now and, unless addressed in a quantum, it will be very difficult for us to accommodate in years to come. If you see something emerging within the community, the information coming through today informs a view that it is a serious situation. If you see something like this occurring around us, and there have been commentators for a sustained period of time, then we are obligated to find ways of responding to that.
Having worked in schools for about 17 years, I know that the role of the school is critical in assisting in the reinforcing of solid principles and backing up families. The school is, in fact, an extension of the home and the values should be reflected and reinforced in the school environment to support the family. The school should not work separate from the family. Always in my time in education I was of the view - and reinforcing that idea - that when a parent drops their child off at the school they are just passing their child over to the school to assist in the role of parenting and so that which occurs in the school plays a very important role.
It has been recognised for some time that the strategic role of the school community is reinforcing central messages. It is no coincidence that this is also being reflected in statements by different agencies within the Northern Territory. In December 2004, there was a document produced called Building Healthier Communities. It featured the member for Arafura and the then member for Stuart as the joint ministers. This document reflected on the importance of nutrition within schools, and it talked about the important breakfast programs. Many local members would know that breakfast programs do run in a number of our schools and play an important and strategic role.
In this case, there has been some $300 000 reported in the 2004 update of Building Healthier Communities to support nutrition programs within schools. It goes down to ensuring that the intake of sugar is reduced, that water is recognised and reinforced as an important drink rather than sweetened and carbonated drinks, and that diets reflected through the breakfast programs are rotated. The focus was Healthy Minds, Healthy Bodies and Healthy Actions, and it showed that the school plays a critical role. Interestingly, it states on the opening page that the kids are healthier as a result and, importantly, they are taking messages about good nutrition home to their families. That reinforces the importance of the school strategically to help reinforce the efforts that families make in good nutrition.
As we go to page 2, it says as schools run these breakfast programs, they are to submit their menus so that they meet dietary guidelines, and nutritionists visit at least once a term to discuss nutritional issues. It is important to see that reinforcing going into the school environment to flow back and reinforce into the home so there can be sustained improvements in nutrition. It says here, too, that the program includes close collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and has also led to increased community involvement. I am a community member. I am involved in the breakfast program in Moulden, and I know that other community groups come in to support sound nutrition messages in the school.
The statement presented today reinforces the message that the disease burden is significant in the Territory: 22% for the non-Aboriginal community and a terrible 31% for the Aboriginal community. Key amongst the chronic disease is diabetes. As we look into the Access Economics report, there are two types of diabetes, Type 1 and 2, and they are on the rise - directly linked to the rise in obesity and the lowering of fitness levels in our young people.
Having been involved in education for 17 years, it is with some sadness that I report that I have seen in recent times the number of young people – and we have had this mentioned in the Chamber today - who are falling to diabetes at increasingly young ages. There was a time, and I am sure most members would reflect, that it was rare to hear of young people succumbing to diabetes. There are a number of them I could list who have now succumbed to diabetes, all linked to nutrition, high levels of sugar in their diet and irregular exercise – preventable. The ongoing costs are enormous, direct and indirect. There is one particular young lady I know who is 18 years of age and works in Palmerston. I used to teach her. She has had Type 1 Diabetes and regular injections since she was 15. She has had some difficulties. Her dad passed away, and she has forgotten, on occasion, to monitor her levels and has been taken quite seriously ill, to the point where we were concerned that she might not survive. She has levelled out and managed to manage her condition.
Another insight in recent times is the Men Making a Difference program at Gray Primary School. I took a group of young lads away and spent a bit of time with them through the course of the term, and I noticed their huge appetite for caffeinated drinks and processed foods. They were not particularly interested in cane toad busting late into the night, because they got a bit tired and wanted to go home and have a bit more caffeine and a bit of sugar - and I am not joking. It does not take much of an imagination to think what could possibly be confronting these young lads as they develop. That is why it is important to intervene, and to take an active role in the school, reinforced by the messages we have already heard.
I am disappointed to hear the minister for Education say there is no clear evidence - or words to that effect - in answer to a question today. The evidence is quite clear. In fact, it is clearly presented in this Chamber today that the levels of chronic disease are high and there needs to be strategic action. The standards to be presented to a school community is not a job for the school community to do, but the school community is a place where you can reach the family, you can reach into the classroom and, as has happened in other states where different models and different codes have been applied, the most important thing is that it has a deep reach. It can only be coordinated by the will of government. That is the leadership that is required. Any commentator on this will tell you that there are reasonable models, there are okay models, and there are very good models, and there are different ways of approaching this educational message.
One good example is New South Wales, where it is not just a matter of passing a law that makes it a requirement that certain standards of goods are served at a canteen and then we all walk away from that. It is much deeper than that and it shows the need for proper resourcing and a strong facilitation role on behalf of government. A standard needs to be set that is easily understood and reinforced - a message that is simple, runs into the home and is easily transferable to the classroom. There needs to be coordination between health and education so that the messages that are run in the canteen run deep into the classroom as well – a coordinated message reflected in the curriculum – so that the message of the classroom matches that which is being presented in the school canteen, that the messages that are being run in the classroom and through the curriculum, in the canteen, are also being run into the family. Those approaches have been shown to produce results, and that is the call that is being made from opposition to government.
In all sincerity, if you choose to take up a model - you do not have to take up the exact model that has been described by the Territory opposition – I can understand that. You can put that aside if you wish, but the underlying principles remain consistent, whether it is in any state in Australia, or different schools which have tried different approaches, in the United Kingdom, in the United States of America, in Canada, or in Europe. Different systems are coming up with ways of ensuring that they can start to turn this problem around.
I am not going to stake everything on the particular model that the CLP has put up. I believe it is quite a good model. If I was running a school at this time, I would run a model like that, but I can tell you that, from the point of view of a school canteen, they need back up, and they need the back up so that it runs in the curriculum as well. If we require a school canteen to run high quality tucker, and we all stand back and think we have achieved something, it will not succeed, because the canteen itself, in isolation, if we require that of a school canteen, it will become in many cases unviable because canteen is seen as a place where you can get a bit of a treat. Sadly, that is abused in our number of our schools. The canteen needs to be reinforced and backed up by a coordinated approach that reaches into the curriculum, into every classroom, and into the family through community advertising consistent messages.
Government is the only agency that can coordinate that between education and health. I urge the minister to take the lead, to step into this place. You will have support. I know that there are school communities out there that need the back-up. There are some wonderful school communities which have gone down this path, and they are fighting a tough battle. Some are having great success because they have a very coordinated and cohesive school community. Others are trying, and they do not have that same level of coordination; it is very difficult for them. One I know is Durack, where they have some difficulties in sustaining the standard in the school canteen. Woodroffe does a fantastic job. They have managed to get a consistent approach and they have stuck to it. It is working well. There are other schools I would not mention here which find it is almost too difficult.
That is why, in New South Wales, for example, it has worked well because of that strongly coordinated facilitated role with the resource of government to ensure that we run that deep and consistent message all the way through.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge the minister to reconsider. You will have the support of Territory opposition, and Territory families and canteen managers on this.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about a few visits that I have made in my electorate over the last couple of months. Unfortunately, I have not had the time that I would have liked in my electorate due to my appointment as a minister, but I have had the chance to visit quite a few school functions. That is something that I do enjoy as part of my role as the member for Drysdale.
On 21 September, the Driver Primary School had their International Food Night which was an outstanding success. It has been running for a number of years now, and is well supported by parents, friends and grandparents. Congratulations must go to the teachers, parents and students for putting on a wonderful night. I must single a couple people out: Wally Mauger and his wife, Fathma, have done a wonderful job; Wally is the chairman and Fatima is Assistant Principal at the school. They did a wonderful job that night organising the events. Wally was running around with a microphone letting everyone know where the food was being sold and what varieties of food were available, and also organising the acts on stage.
I contributed on the night. I helped the Grade 7s cook their satays, and we did not do too badly. We sold quite a few satays and the class made a few dollars on the side out of the event. It was great to see. One of the highlights of the night was the children’s international fancy dress. I was lucky enough to judge that with one of the teachers, Mr Mark Monaghan. It was fantastic to see. There were around 30 children involved dressed up in all sorts of costumes: Mexicans, Uncle Sam was there from the United States, and Asia was well represented, especially China and Japan. They had one young gentleman there who was a Maori. His parents actually tattooed his face with paint, and it was very effective. He was one of the prize winners on the night. The Pacific Islands were well represented; there were a number of grass skirts. Of course, the Aussies were there. One of the funniest entrants, who also won a prize, was a young lad dressed up as a mummy. He was covered from head to foot with bandages and with just his eyes, mouth and nose showing. It was quite effective.
The night was packed with dancing and singing from the various class groups, and even the adult belly dancers engaged in the evening. His Honour, the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan, visited the evening. As I said earlier, congratulations must go to all those who were involved; it was a terrific night.
I thank all the sponsors who put their hands in their pockets to help out on the night. It was a fantastic effort. I understand the school raised a comfortable amount of money to help them in their efforts with the children throughout the remainder of this term and into next year.
There are a couple of achievements to recognise in the school. Young Erin Schipp won two gold medals at the Northern Territory Athletics Championships in early September this year. She won gold medals in the shot put and discus. The school also participated in the 2006 PARCS Inter-School Mathematics Competition and I understand the kids had a lot of fun and conducted themselves very well. Breeanna Gottschling’s group won first prize in the Year 2 and 3 category and Allen Huang’s group ran second in the Year 7 category. Congratulations to all of those kids involved.
One of my other schools that we are very proud of is Gray Primary School. I attended a Father’s Day breakfast on the Monday after the Father’s Day in early September and it was great to see the support from fathers at the function. It was held in the undercover basketball court area where eggs and bacon were cooked. The children had shown up with their fathers and it was great to see, while I was cooking the toast, fathers and children lined up down the side of the basketball court ready to get their feed. It was very well supported. It was great to see the dads taking time off work and it was a pleasure cooking up the toast and mixing and meeting with the fathers who were there.
I had a conversation with a few of the fathers that night. They really love being involved with the school and they wish they could do it a little more often. Obviously, their work commitments hold them back from that. I know the member for Brennan and I - I think the member for Brennan was cooking eggs and bacon while I was cooking the toast - both enjoyed the morning, meeting the fathers and having that commitment to the children at the school was fantastic. I know many of the children took their fathers into their classrooms to show them what they are doing in the classrooms because the fathers do not get that opportunity as much as they would like. In talking to a number of the fathers, they felt that their children are really achieving at the school.
The performance night a couple of weeks ago at Gray Primary School was a great night. There was a huge turnout of parents, grandparents and friends who saw the school children perform and it was enjoyed by all. Unfortunately, I did not get to see too many of the acts. I was cooking the barbecue with Mr Kokkinomagoulos while the member for Brennan sold steak sandwiches and sausage sandwiches. I had a quiet drink with the staff afterwards and it was terrific to see the staff getting the member for Brennan and I involved.
The school group is under wonderful guidance, the teaching group is terrific and Mrs Cindy McGarry, Mrs Sue Beynon and Mr Eric Smith are to be congratulated for the wonderful work they are doing with the staff and with the children. They are progressing well to the point where I would like to add that it was terrific to receive in the post last week that the Gray Primary School has been recognised as one of six Northern Territory schools and one of 100 schools in Australia to participate in the Kids Matter Program. The Kids Matter Program is run by the Australian Primary Schools Mental Health Initiative. The Kids Matter initiative has three major aims: to improve the mental health and wellbeing of primary school students; to reduce mental health problems amongst students with examples of anxiety, depression and behavioural problems; and to achieve greater support from those students at risk of, or experiencing, mental health problems.
With Kids Matter, schools develop and implement a comprehensive plan that addresses the specific mental needs for their students. These plans focus on four key areas: social and emotional skills of students; education and support for parents; early intervention for students at risk with their families; and a positive school community.
It was great to see the school recognised for their efforts and it was one of 100 primary schools throughout Australia. This trial will be comprehensively evaluated with parents, school and staff and students who will be asked to provide their views as to the success of the Kids Matter initiative which will be run over the two-year period. Congratulations to the school. They are doing some wonderful work and wish them every success in the future with that program.
In Question Time yesterday, the Minister for Sport and Recreation mentioned that the Palmerston Magpies, whose home ground is the University oval at the CDU at Palmerston, play their first home game on the ground this week on Sunday. They are playing Southern Districts at 4 o’clock. I congratulate the Palmerston Magpies Club. I have been involved, as everyone knows, with AFL for a number of years and have had quite a bit to do with the Palmerston Magpies. I know the previous committee did an enormous amount of work to secure a home ground and home games at Palmerston. They are to be congratulated. I know the new committee is working extremely hard to ensure that the success is achieved at this ground. Full credit goes to Gus Gale, the president, and his committee for the groundwork they have put in to get this game up this weekend. I envisage there is going to be a fantastic crowd at a big event. I will certainly be there cheering the old black and whites along. I look forward to seeing everyone there.
I understand that the new oval and complex is near completion. The scoreboard goes up this week. I was there on Monday night and the ground looks in really good nick. I know the boys have been training on it. I am sure they are looking forward to playing their first game this week. The building has two large change rooms, an umpires’ room and several toilets, an office and a kiosk. I understand that the clubrooms are getting full use from all the grades that are involved at the club.
I congratulate coaches on their appointment this year. The A Grade coach is Darren Flanagan and he will be assisted by Steve Smith, Dave Barnard and Jason Cockatoo. The B Grade coach is Robbie Corrie. The Under 18s’ coach is Jason Cockatoo. The Under 16s’ coach is Ralph McCoy. The Under 15s’ is Allan Walsh, Under 14s’ Wayne Norman and Under 13s’, Eddie Osgood. It is great to see these people involved with the community and helping the junior footballers.
It was terrific also to see that Aaron Davey was back at the club. Aaron is a former player of the Palmerston Magpies and came up through the junior grades with his brothers. He is back in town at the moment after his commitments with AFL football this year with the Melbourne Football Club. He is getting involved, having a bit of a run with the juniors, and I understand he is even sponsoring one of the junior teams as well. It is terrific to see Aaron supporting the club and giving a little back to the club that has helped him along the way to achieving his AFL dreams.
Aaron is not the only AFL footballer who has come from Palmerston. It would be remiss of me not to mention Trent Hentschel who is playing for the Adelaide Crows at the moment, and Matthew Stokes who is playing with Geelong. These three are about the same age group. They have all come through the junior grades together and have been outstanding players in the Northern Territory, representing the Thunder Squads on their way through, and have gone on to bigger and better things in the AFL. It is great to see them doing wonderful things in the top competition of Australia.
I also acknowledge the sponsors. I understand Adam of Speedy Electrics has made a wonderful contribution to the club in rewiring some of the clubrooms and setting that all up ready for the big game this week. Southern Cross Television is going to be the major sponsor of the Magpies this year. They have come on board together with Top End Hire, Combined Communications, Breezeway Louvres, Territory Marine, Exposure Productions, and Darwin Party Hire. I am sure the club would like to thank all of their sponsors. Similarly, I am sure if anyone else would like to get involved, the club would love to have them.
I know we did not do all that well last week, the first game of the season, but promising things are ahead. I wish them all the best for their first game at the university oval this week.
One last thing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the Cazalys Club at Palmerston. Mr Noel Fahey, with whom I had a number of enjoyable dealings at the Casuarina Club when he was General Manager, has just taken on the General Manager’s role at the Cazalys Palmerston Club. I wish him all the very best in his new role. He is a wonderful operator. He did some wonderful things at the Casuarina Club, and I am sure he will take the club on to bigger and better things, and it is terrific to see the club still supporting affiliated sports clubs in the area.
A couple of weeks ago, they contributed $80 000 for the year towards sporting clubs. It is terrific to see a club of this stature giving money back to sport organisations. We all know how hard it is for amateur clubs to raise money, to chase sponsors, and do all those sort of things. To have a club of this stature giving money back out of profits from gambling and poker machines is fantastic. They have been doing this for a number of years. The contributions have increased significantly since the club first opened in 1999. Seven years ago, Cazalys contributed $15 000 to local clubs and that has now grown to $80 000 so it is fantastic support. It is one of the most generous clubs across the Top End. They regularly donate to local charities and organisations as well. Congratulations to the club, and to Noel. I am looking forward to catching up with him soon. Well done to Cazalys and the board of Cazalys. I have been involved with them through the AFL as well, and they have always been great supporters of sports and I wish them all the best in the future.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Drysdale. May I add: go the Crocs on Saturday.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was invited to attend the Chung Wah Society’s groundbreaking ceremony at the Chung Wah Hall in Wood Street. It was an auspicious day as, selected by the community’s elders after consulting the almanac, it was the day when they decided to commence the construction of the extension of its hall.
I would like to like to give some history of the Chung Wah Society and what it means to the Chinese community in Darwin. It has been there for several generations now, and each generation adds a little more to the Chung Wah grounds, with the start of the temple which was blown down during Cyclone Tracy and then reconstructed. The current hall has already had one extension, and the whole place has been repainted recently. Now they are embarking on the extension of the hall, and also more than doubling the size of the museum. The total funding for this project has been split essentially into three areas: the federal government, through the Department of Transport and Regional Services, DOTARS, provided $330 000; the Northern Territory government provided $245 000; and the Chung Wah Society fundraised with tireless effort over the last four years and have put together $230 000 for the project. They still have another $120 000 held over for the trimmings of the Chinese museum.
The project started some four years ago when the Chung Wah Society committee decided that the Chinese museum was fairly tight in space; it is not conducive to good visitations to the museum to see, value and understand the history that has been kept there. As we heard from previous discussions, we have had the Sweet and Sour display held at the Museum and Art Gallery at Bullocky Point. The collection that formed the Sweet and Sour display is now kept at the Chinese museum. Unfortunately, they did not have enough space for the display to be spread out properly for good viewing so, once the construction of the museum is completed and it has more space, the Sweet and Sour display will be redisplayed in its absolute splendour.
When the project was undertaken four years ago, the committee of the Chung Wah Society undertook to do this, and they also had a subcommittee consisting of five personalities, whom I will name shortly, who undertook the actual project. Design of the extension was by Jeremy Chin; the structural design was contributed to by Stephen Au; mechanical engineering like the airconditioning was provided by David Chin; electrical engineering details were provided by Jacob Li; all coordinated by Daryl Chin, a senior member of the Chung Wah Society.
Four years ago, when the project was initially thought of and quantity surveys estimated the cost of the construction, it was estimated to cost $450 000 to $480 000. Unfortunately, over the last four years, building, material, and labour costs have all gone through the roof, and it is now expected to cost something like $703 000-plus. That is why they sought funding from the federal government and the Northern Territory government.
When Adam Lowe, the President of the Chung Wah Society, first thought how he could apply for the funds and what applications he had to write to seek the funding, he spoke to David Tollner, the member for Solomon, who gave him a lot of assistance. Adam Lowe spoke in glowing terms about the member for Solomon and the work that he did to assist the Chung Wah Society in putting in an application which was successful. The application was made to Sharon Woon, the local Director of DOTARS, and also had the support of Col Fuller, the Chairman of the Northern Territory Area Consultative Committee. With the support of Col Fuller through the NTACC, the DOTARS application was successful and the money came forward. The Northern Territory government provided funding as well and, over the last four years, maximum effort was put in by the Chung Wah Society to fundraise.
You all would have attended the Chung Wah Dragon Ball each year during the Dry Season. This function was, essentially, organised by the Griffiths family, particularly Tina Griffiths, but with strong support and sponsorship from her father, Dick Griffiths, in association with Sony. The sponsorship by Sony, through Dick Griffiths, made it possible. Those of you who have attended the Sony Dragon Ball would have enjoyed the sumptuous occasion which some 500 people or even more - the first two were very well attended; I think they went well above 500 people attending - donated generously, and generously bid for auction items. That was how the Chung Wah Society was able to raise the funds. Obviously, the Lion Dance Troupe also performed some general blessings not associated with the Chinese Temple, and also helped raise money. Each year, the Sony Dragon Ball raffle raises significant additional funds to add to the Chung Wah Society’s collection.
The project will expand the existing Chinese museum to house exhibits which, unfortunately, are currently in storage. By extension, it will increase the capacity of the Chinese museum to more than double its size. Where the current office is will become the entrance to the Chinese museum. The hall will also be increased in size and, altogether, the hall will have 250 m of ground floor space and an extra 100 m of mezzanine floor space. That will increase the seating capacity to about 250 guests in airconditioned comfort. That is quite significant for this humid weather in Darwin.
The ceremony was attended by the members for Casuarina and Karama and myself, and Adam Lowe, the president, performed the official duties while Daryl Chin described the history of the project. Those attending the occasion were the Chinese leaders from all the different organisations in Darwin: the Hakka Association, the Chinese Timorese Association, the Hong Kong Association - I am going to definitely miss some names - the China Australia Society, and the China Australia Friendship Association were also represented as were many other leading lights in the Chinese community. Dick Griffiths was there with his family, Col Fuller in his role as Chair of the NTACC, Sharon Woon was there, and representing the builder was Jason Horder of Horder Constructions who will be undertaking the construction of this project for the next six months.
The gathering demonstrated the community support for the Chung Wah project. It is a project that the Chinese community in the Darwin has shown ownership of and have contributed to in effort, in-kind and in money to ensure that the project is successful - and successful it will, be without a doubt. The architectural, electrical, structural and mechanical designs were all contributed by the names I mentioned earlier. The subcommittee which will be oversighting this project will be Roland Chin, Andrew Chin, Jeremy Chin, Daryl Chin and Adam Lowe, and they will be supervising the construction as it proceeds.
I am sure the Chinese community in Darwin, and especially the Chung Wah members, will be eagerly looking forward to the completion of this building. The building will extend all the way from the current wall up to the very edge of the fence line and will fill the whole site of the Chung Wah block. The remaining space will be the tennis court which is still there and the little shed adjacent to it and then the grand courtyard. People will remember that, five years ago during the centenary celebrations, the Chinese gate and the wall were constructed. That now provides a very nice enclosed area that forms a courtyard which I am sure would be the location for many outdoor functions for the Chung Wah Society.
As with each generation, a little is added to the Chung Wah Society grounds to show that they have been there, they have left something behind, and it has made the place a little better than when they found it. It is a good philosophy to have when you are contributing something in the name of your generation.
The way the Chung Wah Society has led the Chinese community in Darwin these many decades has been a real example for many other ethnic organisations to follow. They have remained very strong and united in their purpose. They have retained the Chinese culture within the Australian context very well. They have integrated into the mainstream community, yet retaining their culture and the language - or languages, should I say, because they speak Cantonese, Mandarin, Hakka - all intermingled in a single organisation that has the ethnic Chinese culture and interests at heart.
I wish the Chung Wah Society well. I hope they will continue with great projects that they can locate at their current site. I encourage this government to continue to support the Chung Wah Society in its endeavours. It is a good and responsible organisation in this city. I hope they continue to spread their influence across the Territory right down to Alice Springs, which they have already done in bringing the Chinese New Year Lion Dance into Alice Springs every year, as they have done for the last nine years. I look forward to more of that in the future.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my colleague, the member for Greatorex, about the great work that the Chung Wah Society does as the fantastic representative body of the Chinese community in the Territory.
There are a lot of events for me to get through, so I will do my best.
I have spoken about the wonderful Friday night Palmerston markets many times in the Assembly. There are only a few weeks left to run this year and I encourage everyone to get to the markets before they finish. Julia and her committee do a fantastic job each week organising all stallholders. I want to specifically mention the commitment of the Palmerston markets to ensuring community groups are able to set up amongst the commercial ventures. The sunset spectacular of birds alighting in the trees is loved by many. There is usually a 15- to 20-minute cacophony of bird calls that seems to drown out any other noise, as well as visual delight of great flocks of birds swooping through the sky - absolutely brilliant.
I confess that I am delightfully surprised by the number of interstate visitors who now visit the markets. This obviously has spin-offs for the shops that surround the markets. I am looking forward to the opening of the new coffee shop that is part of the library building. It is a good position for such a venture. What could be better than stopping for a coffee and starting one of the books you have just borrowed from the Palmerston Community Library? Additionally, the coffee shop will become a convenient venue for a break for Palmerston students using the library resources for research and study.
I have said before that the library is a fantastic public asset for the Palmerston and surrounding communities. The library community rooms are already used by many groups and it has become the community hub that I believed was always envisioned. Through the cooperative arrangement between the Northern Territory government and the Palmerston City Council, the library is always where Palmerston residents can find a great deal of Northern Territory government information. Of course, people can always get assistance from my office if they are looking for information about government.
I mentioned before students studying in the library. Year 12 end-of-year exams will have started by the time the Assembly next sits after these sittings. I wish all students the very best in their endeavours. I can remember my final year of high school and the mixed feelings of not looking forward to the ordeal, but wanting them over as quickly as possible. In my view, Year 12 is the most intense and sustained period of study a young person can go through. University and tech courses or on-the-job training have their own particular pressures. Certainly, many post-high school study programs will involve some form of examination. However, I do not think that they compare to the continued pressure that is involved with completing Year 12. So, good luck to everyone. The phrase carpe diem is good advice from Horace: seize the day. However, I prefer the more contemporary quote from the late Kerry Packer: life is not a dress rehearsal.
There has been a lot of talk in the media this week about an amnesty for paedophiles. I oppose those views, as does the government. I am sure that the people of Palmerston would join me in not supporting this suggestion.
This weekend, Palmerston Magpies, as my colleague, the member for Drysdale, said play their first home game at their new ground. Congratulations to Gus Gale and his committee for the hard work they have put in. Good luck to the team and may the ground become a fortress to which other teams fear to travel.
I would like to recognise Cazalys for their promotion of the game to their members in their literature and in their events. I was at the half-yearly disbursement ceremony on 21 September, where Cazalys presented sums of money to the affiliated clubs. General Manager, Noel Fahey, paid tribute to the staff and club members when he said - and I quote from the club website at www.cazalysnt.org.au/membership/ newsletter.htm:
- Thanks to the continued support of patrons enjoying our bistro, gaming lounge, members only bottle shop and main bar, we are able to give back to our affiliated clubs in the most basic of ways - money, which each club, we know, needs to help it prosper in the years ahead.
Continuing quoting from that web page:
- Palmerston Raiders senior vice president, Errol Edwards, said Cazalys’ contribution to the club was fantastic: ‘It is only in the last few years that we have become financially stable. We are really looking forward to a prosperous future working with Cazalys. The money we receive we use for equipment and general day-to-day running costs which mounts up considerably’.
I saw how well the Raiders Under 14s and Under 16s teams played in their finals. The lads did extremely well and did themselves proud, even though they did not ultimately win. For my opinion and what it is worth, the Under 14s’ result did not really reflect the level of commitment that the team put in and they way they played for each other. I congratulate the committee at the Raiders organisation, and the many parents who give up their time in a variety of ways to be involved in the running of the club at junior and senior level. The Under 16s came oh so close to victory. As those of us who have played sport know, the game - whatever the game is - can be cruel sometimes. I thank the committee for getting me involved in the club and inviting me to their events. I happily provide what support I can and look forward to the start of next season already.
Dottie Daby was recently featured in the Northern Territory News. I think it was the ‘Our History’ lift-out which contained a photo of the 1966 Whippets basketball team. There is no mistaking Dottie. She does not seem to have aged at all; hard to believe it is 40 years ago. Well done, Dottie. I can inform the House that Dottie is just as active now as she was then. She may have hung up the basketball uniform, but her community activities keep her moving as fast as lightning. To say she is an asset to her community does not do her justice. She is involved in many things.
On 16 September, I was pleased to attend the 30th birthday of Mr Brad Tonna at the Cyprus Club. The event was also a celebration of the christening of Brad and Janice’s daughter. I first met Janice’s mother, Odette Simoes, through my employment at the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. Odette is a wonderful, generous community-minded lady. Odette was the face of the Northern Territory in the national Clean Start industrial campaign by the LHMU, a campaign to raise community awareness of the lowest paid job classifications. Odette and her friends and family catered for the many guests entirely on their own. Odette’s sons did duty behind the bar, and her daughters did stints singing with the band that was playing. Kids were well catered for, including a jumping castle in the grounds of the Cyprus Club. It was a brilliant evening. I am amazed at Odette and her family’s organisation of these family events, and I have been to a couple now.
On 18 September, I attended the opening of the Coolalinga and District Community Bank’s official opening. The bank is part of the Bendigo Community Bank network. I know that this is an issue dear to the member for Goyder’s heart. The opening was very well attended. The fact it is open at all bears testimony to the hard graft of local people convincing the bank that it would have enough support from the local community. This involved significant fundraising on the part of a dedicated team of organisers. It is a prime example of people power. I can inform the Assembly that the role of my colleague, the member for Goyder, was recognised by the committee spokesperson on the day as integral to getting the branch open at Coolalinga. Well done, member for Goyder.
Sharon and I attended the decommissioning of the HMAS Launceston on 8 September. It is the first decommissioning we have attended. The ceremony proceeded with typical military fashion. HMAS Launceston was commissioned on 1 March 1982. She was initially based in Sydney before relocating to Darwin in February 1986. One of 15 Fremantle Class patrol boats built for the Royal Australian Navy, Launceston has spent the majority of her life contributing to the surveillance of Australia’s northern approaches, conducting fisheries and immigration law enforcement operation in support of Australia’s strategic interests. Launceston was one of three Fremantle Class patrol boats used in the filming of the ABC television series, Patrol Boat, all of which used the Launceston’s pennant number, 207.
I attended a meeting of the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans Association. I thank Tom Davern for the invitation. As members may be aware, the association members are veterans who took part in different conflicts from World War II onwards. I thank the members for their hospitality. I indicated my support for their group and am working with their committee to progress some matters in which they have an interest and were raised with me at the meeting. These people put their lives at risk on their country’s behalf, and I feel it a small return on my behalf to try to assist where I can.
There were a couple of people I know quite well who are part of the group. Mr Curly Nixon is a well-known long-term Top End resident. He is a living compendium of local history. I often think that Curly should walk around with a tape recorder, iPod, or something like that with him, recording the stories with which he can both entertain and educate.
Another of the members of the association is Mr Dave Collins. I first met Dave through my involvement in the Darwin Youth Sister Cities Organisation and the Haikou Sister City Committee of the Darwin City Council. I knew that Dave had served with the Defence Forces and flew in helicopters. What I did not know until I attended the meeting of the association is that Dave was part of one of the helicopter crews involved in the battle of Long Tan. Dave gave a report at the meeting of the reunion that was held in Canberra commemorating the anniversary of the battle. It was an emotional experience for Dave and, I think, also a bit of a spiritual one. I hope he will not mind me saying that. It is clear from his report and recollections that, for those who were part of the conflict in some way, the battle scars still hurt and not all of them are on the outside.
I am reminded again of the many personnel we have in a number of theatres overseas. They are overseas at the direction of their country and in pursuit of her interests. I thank them, as I have on previous occasions, for their commitment and determination. I hope for their safe return to their families.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016