2008-02-13
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the galleries of many visitors who are joining us for the ‘Sorry Day’ motion today. It is a great pleasure to have you here. I acknowledge people who have come from the Garden Point Association, the Croker Island Group, Retta Dixon, the Northern Territory Stolen Generation Committee and the Central Australian Stolen Generation Group.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the great work being done by our indigenous park rangers and indigenous landholders to ensure the conservation of threatened species across the Territory. The Territory has 203 threatened species of plants and animals, many of which inhabit the most remote parts of the Northern Territory. Our record of extinctions over the last 100 years has not been good, and none of us want to lose any more of the Territory’s wonderful wildlife species.
Indigenous Territorians have a particular interest in, and responsibility for, their lands and the plants and animals that live there. In recent years, we have seen strong collaboration between environmental scientists trained in western tradition and indigenous Territorians, particularly those involved in the indigenous ranger programs. The programs provide employment opportunities for about 400 people in many remote and disadvantaged communities and are achieving important conservation objectives.
Indigenous rangers bring to this conservation management very important skills and knowledge, often including an intricate knowledge of country and wildlife and, particularly, acute perception of their lands and its management. Managing threatened species involves intensive management of the species in predator-proof enclosures; translocation of highly threatened species either within the Territory, such as to offshore islands, or to other states; surveys and monitoring of specific threatened species; detailed studies of the ecology of particular species; development of management guidelines to improve the conservation status of threatened species; and on-the-ground management actions.
We have an invaluable natural heritage and a responsibility to all Territorians and future generations to protect and nurture that heritage. The conservation of these species is a challenge. There is little information available, making it harder to identify the best course of management. Scientists in my department provide much of the expertise for this management, but it is impossible for them to take the sole responsibility for management of all 203 threatened species - and they should not, for all members of our society can and should have some interest in the fate of our wildlife.
An example of great collaboration between indigenous landowners, ranger groups and scientists is seen in the management of the northern quoll. In 2003, a small cargo of mammalian refugees, 65 northern quolls, were translocated from the Territory mainland to two islands off north-east Arnhem Land. As we all know, northern quolls are perhaps the most susceptible of all native animals to the detrimental impact of cane toads. As a consequence, quolls have rapidly disappeared from most of their range across the Top End.
The traditional owners of two islands, Pobassoo and Astell, agreed to take care and responsibility of the quolls. Over the past four years, the traditional owners and the Gumurr Marthakal Rangers from Galiwinku, together with scientists, have monitored the progress of the quolls. It is a great collaboration to see skills swapping in training and sharing of long-term perspectives on environmental care and responsibility. The program has been remarkably successful. The 65 quolls love their island refuge and set to work assiduously to increase their numbers.
Today, there are 2000 quolls on the islands. Extinction has been forestalled and should, in the long term, a way be found to eliminate toads, we have quoll populations that we can restore to the Territory mainland.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is a positive move by the government to look at the removal of quolls from the mainland because, as you said, quolls do not seem to have any resistance to cane toads.
Their relocation is the good part of the story, I suppose. However, the other side is that the government had opportunities - which it actually recommended through one of its committees - to do more work on trying to reduce the effects of cane toads. I refer especially to a request by some of the indigenous people in the Cobourg Peninsula area to look at putting a fence across the Cobourg Peninsula to try to stop the invasion of cane toads into that area. That was a recommendation of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee at that time. It is a pity that the government did not try that. There was no attempt to do anything. It was a simple request by the indigenous people in that area to at least have a go at keeping one part of the mainland free of cane toads.
Unfortunately, we now have only areas offshore that are free of cane toads – and I am not sure that is accurate when it comes to Centre Island in the Gulf. However, we have not kept areas free of cane toads on the mainland. That was a great opportunity to do that.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I think it might be the first one you have given as the minister for Environment. Is that right? Yes.
There is no doubt that natural resources certainly offer opportunities for indigenous employment in remote communities. Indigenous people have a great understanding of the environment and the land; therefore, it is imperative that we work together with them and combine the expertise of the scientists to carry out research in those communities and in remote areas.
The member for Nelson talked about putting a fence across to stop the cane toads from getting there. I do not know how that would work. Having experience with cane toads in Katherine, I do not know much that can stop them, quite frankly. It would have been worth a try …
Mr Conlan: There are feral doves.
Mrs MILLER: … but I honestly do not know what can possibly stop them. They are quite determined creatures and, as you know …
Mr Conlan: Big problem, feral doves. Feral camels, minister. What about the camel problem?
Mrs MILLER: … they breed like I do not know what. I believe that they are even at Tennant Creek now. It is very interesting to have a debate on whether that may have stopped them. However, thank goodness the quolls are being protected and, hopefully, the indigenous rangers will be able to keep an eye out for them. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their input into the report. Unfortunately, I did not pick up all the points that the member for Katherine was making because of the little noise that was going on up the back there. Good on you, members. I am not used to tuning in, but I promise I will not be distracted any more by those silly interjections ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KIELY: As we know, the cane toad problem is a national problem these days; it is cross-jurisdictional. It started in Queensland. Cane toads were introduced as a good idea at the time, and it was soon found out that they were a horror to the native fauna of the country. It has been an ongoing battle between landowners and communities to try to stop the spread of the toad. Well over a decade ago we knew they were coming across the border. They have been coming across through Borroloola, and Knott’s Crossing in Katherine is a hotspot.
Since this government came to office, we have spent over $1m on cane toad management. We are committed to trying to get rid of this worst of the invasive species we have at the moment. We have a report ongoing through the Environment committee on invasive species. I look forward to receiving that report.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I recognise the wonderful job you have done of ensuring that many local people are here today for the historical occasion of the ‘Sorry Day’ motion.
Madam Speaker, the report that I am going to contribute will be of interest to many of the families here with us today. There is no doubt about the importance of sport and recreation to all Territorians. While we have a young population, we cannot pretend that, statistically, we have an overly healthy population. Sports benefits are both physical and social. Sport and recreation lies very much at the heart of the Territory’s laidback outdoor lifestyle.
In an era when Australia’s general fitness levels are poor and our obesity levels have climbed to such an extent that the problem is now described by health professionals as an epidemic, the government recognises the value of making sport and recreation accessible to as many Territorians as possible. When it comes to organised recreation, Territorians enjoy the highest participation rate per capita.
Our participation rates in organised sport are amongst the highest in the country. The Northern Territory government contributes the second-highest per capita funding in Australia to sport and recreation and, while we continue working to increase sport and recreation opportunities for Territorians, we are particularly conscious of the importance of sport and recreation for indigenous Territorians.
The Territory government has an Indigenous Sports Program. The primary objective of the program is to provide all indigenous Territorians with the opportunity to participate in some form of sport or active recreation. The program supports the employment of the community sport and recreation officers who play a vital role in the social fabric in so many bush communities. The Indigenous Sports Program is funded through the Australian Sports Commission, and a two-year agreement has been negotiated for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 financial years. The Australian Sports Commission provides just over $522 000 per year to support the employment of seven indigenous sports officers across the Northern Territory. This is a program with a long-term partnership between the Australian and Northern Territory governments. In addition, the Northern Territory government provides over $2.9m per year to provide sport and recreation opportunities for indigenous Territorians, plus additional sport for the Indigenous Sports Program. This allows community government councils to employ 58 sport and recreation officers, as well as supporting the wages of the indigenous sports program officers.
Closing the Gap funding of $4.5m has also been allocated to support sport and recreation programs from the 2007-08 to 2011-12 budgets to provide additional support for remote indigenous communities. Funding will focus on program development, facilities and increased performance of community sport and recreation officers in remote communities.
The Indigenous Sports Program is guided by a strategic plan. The principle objects of the Indigenous Sports Program are: to increase participation and provide sporting pathways for indigenous Territorians; look at participation opportunities in other sports, in addition to the common sports, for people with disabilities; and increased participation in support functions such as coaching, officiating and governance.
The Indigenous Sports Program is built on a core set of values which include family, respect, optimistic attitudes, positive values, inclusive environment, effective communication, respecting confidentiality, and integrity. As with so many initiatives for indigenous people, there are barriers. It is also acknowledged that we have to do more to improve infrastructure at times, and build people’s motivation. It is hard, though, for individuals to maintain motivation in the face of difficulties such as substance abuse and dysfunction.
The strategic direction for the Indigenous Sports Program acknowledges the program is confronted by funding challenges. As a government, we must work to overcome these challenges, because sport has the potential for so many positive outcomes amongst indigenous people.
There is no question about the value of the indigenous contribution to the Territory and the Territory lifestyle. The prodigious natural talent of indigenous athletes has been truly highlighted at the national level for many decades. In the AFL, Territory-born footballers have established themselves as household names Australia-wide, thanks to their natural athletic gifts and hard work and dedication. As a government, we are committed to providing the opportunities for those indigenous athletes with outstanding talent to have access to pathways that may take them to the elite level. The Indigenous Sports Program must also maintain its focus on building opportunities for participation for as many indigenous Territorians as possible.
Madam Speaker, I look forward, in my role as Sports minister, to continuing to develop and encourage indigenous sports activity, and to ensure that the Territory lifestyle continues to be a fantastic opportunity for every Australian.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Sport for his report. I hope the minister does continue to develop sport and sporting programs to the Northern Territory. Plenty of young men and women, particularly young indigenous men, are benefiting from the leadership programs in communities, particularly with the AFL. I know you talked about this before. Two minutes does not really do it much justice, but I agree and I hope to see these programs continue.
You mentioned obesity. It is a big problem right across the Northern Territory in our towns and remote communities. I believe there could be some revision in canteens. I know that is more an area for the Minister for Health. I did flag the traffic light program to address some of the childhood obesity problem, which is a successful program in the UK. No doubt, the Minister for Health has seen that. It highlights particular food groups; what is healthy and what is not.
There is a story on the back page of yesterday’s Centralian Advocate that I draw the minister’s attention to regarding the Imparja Cup - about which we both spoke glowingly yesterday - perhaps being in jeopardy. The minister might like to have a look at that story and see if he can address that. I thank the minister for his report, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the minister for his report. He had a chance to mention Hawthorn because one of our new recruits is an indigenous player from the North, young Rioli …
Mr Bonson: Champion!
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think he will be a champion.
Much of what you said, minister, applies to both indigenous and non-indigenous. The benefits of sport go right across cultures; it is important to all of us. The difficulty with many indigenous communities, as I mentioned yesterday, is adequate facilities. I am not sure you need to teach many kids skills in regard to football. You just need to give them a decent football field to play on.
I remember a photograph in the paper the other day of a young boy – I am not sure from which community – went surfing for the first time off the beach in Sydney. He had never been near the water, went straight onto a surfboard and can do all the things that most of us would take months to do - just like that, and he comes from the desert. There is a lot of natural skill out there. What we need to do is ensure that young people have the facilities and the pathways to achieve greater things. That is especially so with people living in remote communities.
Overall, we all know the benefits of sport. There is a connection also between antisocial behaviour and lack of sport. As well as sport providing health benefits, it also provides self-esteem, learning to grow up, accept responsibilities, teamwork and caring for others.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. There is much more we can do. Let us see where we go in the future.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the member for Greatorex’s comments about the Imparja Cup. I can assure the member for Greatorex – I know that he is representing Alice Springs and the interests of Alice Springs – that this government supports the Imparja Cup. I signed off on an extra $10 000 to ensure that indigenous teams from all over Australia could participate in the cricket match.
I also had a chance to talk to Mike Brown, the Chair of Cricket Australia, who just came back from Dubai negotiating with India, Pakistan, etcetera. One of the issues we announced yesterday was the money going into cricket in trying to get international cricket games to the Territory. We also had an opportunity to talk about the Imparja Cup. They see it as a fantastic vehicle to promote indigenous athletes, with the opportunity to one day wear the baggy green hat. He is very interested in going out to the bush and doing different things. I can assure the member that the Imparja Cup will happen.
Member for Nelson, I agree that facilities are a big issue, and that we need to invest in these communities. What we have seen today is a Prime Minister who has indicated a plan about investing in Aboriginal people to create a better future. I assure you that this government will continue to invest in the right areas of sport and recreation in those areas …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, the Katherine region has the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in the Territory: more than 20 litres of pure alcohol for every adult per year. The region has suffered unacceptably high levels of alcohol-related harm, antisocial behaviour, community disruption, and personal misery as a result. This government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse in the Katherine region and across the Territory through a range of initiatives aimed at supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction.
As you may be aware, in late 2007, the Licensing Commission declared Katherine as a dry town effective from 21 January 2008. A supply plan was developed to support this initiative.
The following new conditions for takeaway alcohol now apply to premises in Katherine, Mataranka, Victoria River and Pine Creek:
only light beer may be sold for on-premise consumption prior to midday;
takeaway sales only between 2 pm and 8 pm;
no cask wine or fortified wine sales in containers larger than 2 litres, with restricted hours and volume of takeaway sales of these products;
no takeaway sales to taxi drivers on duty;
no takeaway purchases to be kept on premises for later collection by customers;
camera surveillance to be installed in the alcohol service areas of licensed premises; and
all staff serving alcohol should hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate.
Early evidence suggests that these controls have already had a significant positive impact on the level of antisocial behaviour in the Katherine CBD.
In an attempt to further address the issue of systemic alcohol abuse, an electronic identification system, or ID system, for the purchase of takeaway alcohol will be installed in the coming weeks at targeted stores and public hotels in the Katherine region including Pine Creek, Mataranka and Victoria River Roadhouse. The ID system will also be installed in Alice Springs. The aim is to prevent people who are banned by court order from buying takeaway alcohol from these stores. The electronic ID system will also better ensure that local liquor restrictions such as one wine cask per person per day are complied with. It may be further used by licensees to comply with the current Australian government requirement to record any alcohol sales of $100 or more.
Every customer purchasing alcohol from one of these outlets will be required to first produce photo ID such as a driver’s licence, passport, proof-of-age card or proof-of-identity card. The ID will be scanned and matched against the database of people banned by court order. I believe this will be an effective tool in monitoring people on court orders that restrict their availability to alcohol such as alcohol court orders, relevant domestic violence orders, or bail conditions. It will also be used to facilitate compliance with licence conditions that limit the quantity of certain products such as cask wine and fortified wine.
Installation is scheduled to commence in mid-February 2008 in Alice Springs, and shortly thereafter in the Katherine region. Before going live, there will be an extensive communications and education campaign to inform the public of the need for an ID when purchasing takeaway alcohol.
These are serious steps but, unfortunately, they are absolutely necessary if we are serious about ensuring Katherine is a safe and friendly place to live, work and raise a family. Challenging the culture of alcohol consumption within the Territory will be a long-term proposition and we will not succeed with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to ensure measures have the support of local communities and are designed with our community in mind. That is why I will be travelling to Katherine shortly to see firsthand how these measures are working and hear from locals about what else needs to be done.
The progress in Katherine that I have set out today is an important step in making the Territory a healthier, happier place for all Territorians. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to honourable members.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the report and the efforts of government to address a core problem. Why is it that there is such a thirst for alcohol in the Northern Territory? Why is it increasing? You only have to look at - and I pay my compliments to the good people of Groote Eylandt who spent three years working together to develop a model. They compromised, they had intensive negotiations, and I believe there were 13 different drafts. To the end they were together, and they owned that decision. That decision has been the template for application in different communities. I am very concerned that the successful end point for the Groote Eylandt community has been applied too quickly to other communities that have not gone through the extensive process of community consultation, therefore, owning the result.
I am aware of the concerns that are already arising in the Alice Springs and Katherine communities where there is the need to have the whole community go through the process as we have seen in Groote Eylandt. The end point of Groote Eylandt is to be applauded. It stands as an example. However, what sits behind that end point is extensive community consultation in which they were all participants. It was a difficult process, and you have cut to the chase too quickly in applying a reform without bringing the people with you to produce the effect that we want: to reduce the thirst for alcohol in our community.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, why does the minister not stand up and tell us the things he is doing to stop the alcohol flowing rather than just restrictions? Why do you think Aboriginal people come into town and get on the grog? They cannot drink in their own homes, in town camps or on communities. They are allowed to drink; it is our law. However, you have made no effort to make life on Aboriginal communities good enough that they do not want to drink. Where are the programs which ensure life is rich and rewarding, where there is education and employment on communities for Aboriginal people?
I have many Aboriginal friends and they should be allowed to drink. However, all you are doing is implementing restrictions, which is not achieving anything. There are still too many presentations at the Alice Springs Hospital from bashings and domestic violence. Why not think broader? Think about rehabilitation, remedial programs, and education. Let us ensure that we give opportunities for people to have input into. Look at your figures. Come to Alice Springs; I will take you to all the hot spots where they are drinking here, there and everywhere.
Even though you have the restrictions – the 2 km law, a dry town, restrictions on public housing - it is not working because we all know prohibition is not the answer; it is education, a good lifestyle and programs to ensure that people benefit from them.
Minister, next time you are in Alice Springs come with me and I will show you where all the people drink who are not supposed to drinking in a dry town or within the 2 km limit.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their contribution. This is a government that has taken many steps in relation to alcohol and the problems that alcohol cause …
Mr Conlan: The government has failed. You have failed in it.
Mr Mills: It is increasing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … within our community. I find it quite ironic that two representatives of the former CLP government who were not willing to take large steps in this regard are criticising the government. Yes, we recognise that restrictions are not the be-all and end-all. That is why we have Closing the Gap, where we are trying to address issues around Aboriginal disadvantage. We will continue to do that …
Mr Conlan: Wrapped up in legislation and ignore the real issue, minister.
Mr Mills: You prefer to gaol people.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, on the issue of consultation, I find it quite amazing that this would be said because there has been extensive consultation with Alice Springs and Katherine. In fact, the town councils of those particular towns asked for these measures to be introduced. There has been extensive consultation also through the Liquor Commission. I find it quite strange that the Leader of the Opposition would make this assertion.
Madam Speaker, we are a government that is serious about alcohol, restricting alcohol and solving problems around alcohol ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move -
Madam Speaker, I welcome everyone here today for what is an historic day in our country’s history. This is a day, given the coverage of the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, that will bring a lot of comfort and closure to what has been a tragic and very sorry chapter in our nation’s history.
On 21 October 2001, this Legislative Assembly passed a motion of apology to the Stolen Generations. The Northern Territory was the last state or territory jurisdiction to do so. This morning, the Commonwealth parliament, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, joined the rest of the nation in passing a national apology. On any reckoning, it is an historic moment in our national history. The significance of this moment in history is symbolised by its bipartisan support in the Commonwealth parliament.
We welcome the commitment by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, towards establishing a national commission in partnership with the federal opposition towards closing the gap - towards achieving measurable outcomes in the areas of housing, health and education for indigenous advancement. It is a commitment that all Territorians welcome. In particular, we welcome his commitment to indigenous children, the hope of the future for us all. It is a commitment which we will approach in the spirit of hope, as well as determination, to make a real change in closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage.
As I said in this place in October six years ago, saying sorry is about acknowledging the past, healing the wound, and moving on. The Territory and this Assembly have a great opportunity to move forward in many areas. Whilst everything we do in the Assembly is important, today’s motion, six years later, will probably have a greater emotional impact on some people’s lives than anything else we will do in this parliament.
Once again, may I, on behalf of this parliament, say sorry to the Stolen Generations and their families for the injustices visited on them over so many decades. Given the Commonwealth’s absolute role in the removal of Aboriginal children from their kin and country, the effects of the motion in Canberra will have an even greater impact on members of the Stolen Generations in the Northern Territory.
Last year, when there was a suggestion made to establish a national history curriculum, I immediately threw the Northern Territory’s hat into the ring, pushing for us to have a pivotal role in designing such a national curriculum. I emphasised the critical need for such a national history to incorporate the place of indigenous Australians in our history, both before and after European settlement.
The story of our Stolen Generations is a perfect case in point. The consequence of the removal of so many Aboriginal children under the Commonwealth Native Welfare Ordinance is part of the history of the Northern Territory. The role of members of the Stolen Generations in that history, and their role in contemporary community, social and political life in the Territory is integral to the Territory’s society.
The lives of every Aboriginal member of this Assembly have been affected directly or indirectly by this sorry chapter of our history. It is a history we must commemorate if we are to be true to ourselves as Territorians and Australians. To this end, I add to my call for Aboriginal history to be an integral part of the national history curriculum. The story of the Stolen Generations should be a specific focus of that national history. To do anything less would be to deny our nation the truth about ourselves.
In this parliament six years ago, I had the privilege of telling the remarkable story of a much loved Territorian, Hilda Muir – Aunty Hilda to many of us on this side of the House. Today, I recount part of another of those stories about a remarkable Territorian, Betty Fisher. I am grateful to her family for agreeing to her words being used this morning.
Betty was taken from her family from around Katherine in the 1930s and taken to Croker Island. This part of her life is about another kind of hardship and courage as the Japanese started bombing Darwin and Northern Australia. As Betty told it in 1989:
It was not to happen. Mission authorities refused to allow her to pursue a musical career and sent her back to Croker. However, Betty was to inspire a new generation of Territorians. Ali Mills went on:
Betty Fisher’s story is but one of hundreds, but symbolic of lost opportunities, courage, and strength in getting on with life. The history of the Stolen Generations is part of the Territory’s history, part of our national history. It is a story that we should honour and commemorate and learn from. It is a story that all our children should share.
The Northern Territory’s Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage policy looks to the long term, to an intergenerational approach to overcoming many decades of neglect and mismanagement. For this government, Closing the Gap is not rhetoric. It is not just a slogan; it is a program that is geared to achieving real results. It is an approach that has adopted 5-, 10- and 20-year targets that are not just realisable, but are critical if we are to achieve the outcomes we desire. The Territory’s Closing the Gap policy covers the following key areas:
safety, in which child protection measures are to be paramount, through a combination of increased resources, legislative change and a change in the culture of how services are delivered; increased policing presence throughout our remote area policing strategy; the establishment of community justice and offender rehabilitation; a concerted and integrated approach to preventing family violence; and an absolute commitment to tackling the ravages of alcohol and substance abuse;
education, which we all know is critical. In partnership with the Commonwealth, we aim to expand educational opportunities for all Territory kids. From increased resources to preschool and through to expanding opportunities, we have already established NTCE graduation from remote schools, building on this government’s achievements in rolling out secondary education to remote schools, a far cry from the decades of neglect in the past;
health, in which early childhood health needs are met through an holistic approach to early childhood services and maternal health, and in which primary health care continues to be expanded with an emphasis on chronic disease prevention;
housing, which, in a continuing partnership with the Commonwealth, we embark on a $1bn housing program to build new houses and upgrade houses in remote communities, townships and town camps right across the Northern Territory over the next few years; and
jobs, including transition from CDEP to full-time paid employment, especially in the health and education sectors on one hand and, importantly, through support to indigenous economic development on the other - especially through the massive housing program we are about to embark on right across the Northern Territory.
Today’s historic event in Canberra is a call for national unity over indigenous affairs. It is one that this government is determined to commit to. In saying sorry today, we are saying there must be hope for the future if we are to mature as a nation. That surely is something we can all work towards.
The Prime Minister today, at the end of what was an historic speech in the history of this country said and called for, ‘a new chapter in the history of this great land Australia’. With the federal parliament making this apology and saying sorry today to the Stolen Generations, I believe a new chapter of reconciliation will occur. I commit my government to playing our part.
Madam Speaker, it is a new beginning but it is not an end point. Let us all work together for a better future. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge those who have gathered to witness this occasion. I also acknowledge that every one of you carries a family story that reaches far back. Every one of us in this Chamber also carry our own family stories to this place right here and now. Nationally, thoughts and hearts are turned towards an issue that has troubled this nation for too long. It requires a different attitude, a different approach, and extraordinary honesty if we are to find the means to walk together. Unless we find the point of agreement, we are unable to walk together.
This is the time to reflect on past mistreatment. It is a time where we must look at both the past and the present and every point in between, and say sorry. I have seen the pain that has been borne with dignity, the faces of the young and the old, particularly the older ladies. I have seen the anger of the youth fuelled by despair and disconnection. I am prepared to say sorry but, more importantly, I am prepared to put my hand out as a private citizen, as an individual, as a person, as a family man, and help. I am sorry.
It is impossible to unravel and to walk back to the years when decisions were made, and dissect that time with the tools of today. It is impossible to go back honestly and dissect that time when decisions were made and children were taken from families, but what we can do is to gauge the pain today and to respond to that and endeavour to weave a new story. Whether yesterday’s motive or intent is judged good or bad is irrelevant; it is the effect on the lives today.
It is not just those who have the history of being stolen. For those of us who walk as Australians with our own stories, we cross over - our paths are one path. I carry in my own experiences, friendships and relationships that same pain because I am an Australian, a fellow citizen of this ancient land. I truly sense the weight of this moment as the nation reflects and responds. I also bear the additional and more contemporary weight of a citizen of the Northern Territory. We are all here not by accident; this is our place, our time, our opportunity to respond. We are, together, citizens of an ancient land. As one people, we are required to renew our efforts to reconcile past wrongs and cut a new path. That is the challenge.
The Prime Minister’s statement today, joined by the Leader of the Opposition, opened with the call to reflect upon those past mistreatments of Aboriginal Australians. It is critical, though, that that reflection leads to practical action. The honesty of this reflection must cut deep. It then must transfer to meaningful action. If it is without the meaningful action, there will be no antidote to the bitter poison of tokenism. I do not want to see any further humiliation. I do not want to see any more life fed into monuments that mark a point in time and, then, we move on with a sense of euphoria.
One thing I have learnt from my indigenous Australian friends whom I have travelled part of my journey with, is their ability to see things that I could not see. As a young man, when I was only 12, my friend Johnny was 16. He could see emu tracks in the gravel. All I could see was the gravel. Reggie could point out the kangaroo under the tree in the distance, and all I could see was the tree. Later on, I learnt that while my peers listened to words, my Aboriginal friends could read the story behind the words. They read the person who was speaking.
It is for this very reason that I come to this moment with great trepidation. I know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. This is a delicate matter and to proceed is going to take an extraordinary resolve beyond words; to be able to discern the story behind the words - the motives and the intents - which will see a courageous resolve.
It is truly sobering to admit that this parliament said sorry nearly seven years ago. However, since then, we have had an intervention. Between the time of saying sorry and the intervention, there was much turmoil and travail even in this parliament. In the midst of that point between the apology in this parliament and the intervention, many debates were conducted.
One call was made in this parliament - a call of challenge. It is a personal challenge, not a challenge of ideology or ideas, or competing views of history. It is a personal challenge which is this: if we are unable to put aside personal, political and ideological differences to transcend, then we have no hope of effecting positive change to those we are concerned about. If we cannot transcend and put those things in their right place and find a new place to walk forward, we are only going through the motions with the hope that something may happen. It is personal; that is why the call was made in this parliament in 2006, 18 months ago. That challenge or proposition, which would result in the formation of a truly bipartisan committee to work together to find a new path through, was put and was rejected.
In today’s new spirit of cooperation, reconciliation, and understanding of the problems of the past which transcends party lines, regarding something which effects all of our histories, I put that challenge once again; that, in this Chamber, the 25 members could find a new place to stand and work together on this single issue - to find a new path through. Forget the whipping boys of the past, forget the blame, put that in another place and find a new way forward and a new way of conducting business in this Chamber on this issue. If we cannot achieve that, this is another motion, this is another expression that may make us feel buoyant for a time but, in the heat of day, in the heat of battle, things will remain the same. That is my challenge. Our ability to meet the challenge of reconciliation is only achieved through relationships: person to person, Australian to Australian, indigenous to non-indigenous, indigenous to indigenous, non-indigenous to non-indigenous, one to another.
I am pleased that the Chief Minister has given reference to the need for the history to be placed more prominently within our curriculum. That is supported. I ask the Chief Minister and members to consider another step, which I believe is necessary, and that is, language. Language holds the key to culture. To understand another person cannot be gained without knowledge of the language. There is a need for more indigenous languages to be spoken in our schools. For those public servants who work in the field, there needs to be not only an investment in programs, but an investment in training, cross-cultural training and language training, so that we can truly and practically build that bridge.
There has been much talk in the past of bilingual education. That is a practical step forward; it shows some respect for the host language and builds the bridge of understanding. I am embarrassed at times that I can speak the language of my neighbour in Indonesia, but I cannot speak the language of anyone here in the Northern Territory. I do not know whether I can say ‘hello’. I can say one word; where I come from in Western Australia there are some. I know the secret and the power of language. That is the challenge for us to contend with. That is beyond the euphoria of today: to take up that challenge, to learn another language and to walk in the shoes of another. That is when we get the real fuel, the real power to make a go of this, and to go the next step.
There have been so many policies, so many words spoken on both sides of the House, both sides of the political divide. There have been many assurances and promises made, hopes raised and trashed. We all need to look honestly into the face of national shame and despair and draw the resolve for courageous action. While politics and ideology influences actions to rectify past wrongs, we are doomed to repeat the past if we are unable to transcend personal and political differences. The actions of combined Labor and Liberal governments, Premiers and Chief Ministers, Education ministers, Health ministers, even Aboriginal leaders, have led us to the place we stand today. All of us are involved in this.
I stand painfully aware that today could be just another event that will be judged in similar terms to the judgment we make on actions of the past. I do not want that to occur. That is why I put my hand out for practical action accompanying this motion. I do not want this to be judged in the future in the same terms we are judging the past today.
I know that I speak in the presence of those who are personally familiar with the effect of past wrongs, and painfully bear that burden. I hope, on your behalf, that the story behind these words in this Chamber today will lead to a change. I will say again: it is up to each of us personally to translate the sentiment of today into action so that together we can write that next chapter and, together, we can write a new story for our children’s children. May they be sitting in this parliament in 25 years time and hearing a new story. I support the motion.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia Nation, the traditional owners of the land on which we speak, the members of the Stolen Generations here with us today, and family and friends to observe this historic occasion as we support the Prime Minister and the Australian parliament for their apology, saying sorry, to the Stolen Generations.
I support the motion in support of Prime Minister Rudd’s Stolen Generations apology earlier this morning.
In October 2001, I stood here contributing to the debate on the Northern Territory government’s own apology to the Stolen Generations. On that day, I acknowledged members of the Stolen Generations who had travelled from Tennant Creek and other parts of the Barkly to witness that important event. Some of those people are with us here again today, and I acknowledge you. However, there are some people who are not here today. I pay tribute to the family and friends of those people who are not with us today, as I do to all members of the Stolen Generations who are not with us today.
I remind us all that, for many families, the removal of children occurred across more than one generation. It was not a one-off event. The effects have been felt and continue to be felt by the descendants of the children taken from their families who grew up in various institutions across the country.
My family is one such family, with my own mother a resident of the Emerald River Mission established solely for the care of a particular category of people – half-castes - from 1920 to the early 1930s. Keith Cole, in his book Aborigines of Arnhem Land, recorded how Emerald River was established and its purpose:
Later, another generation of my family was affected. My elder brother, Charlie, found himself collected about 1943 or 1944 by a Native Affairs officer to be raised away from his family at Moola Bulla Station, an institution near Halls Creek in Western Australia that was to be the home of many children removed from their families across the Kimberleys.
Many indigenous families in the Northern Territory have similar stories to tell: a shared heritage unasked for; the direct result of the Australian government’s policymakers’ own determination of what was best for us over time.
The thinking of these times is recorded by Charles Abbott, Administrator of the Northern Territory for the period 1937 to 1946, in his book The Australian Frontier Province. Abbott described the half-caste problem, as he called it:
This history of removal and isolation from families, the loss and hurt it created across generations, needs to be acknowledged and understood as part of our shared history as Australians.
I thank Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his parliamentary colleagues for their leadership in acknowledging the traumatic effects of these Australian government policies and for their conviction in saying sorry.
The Prime Minister has also reminded us of the heavy responsibility that all governments have in determining and implementing policies that directly impact on families and affect their emotional, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
However, I now turn to the future. The Prime Minister, in his apology, has highlighted the determination of his government to create a future where we harness the determination of all Australians – indigenous and non-indigenous - to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement, and economic opportunity. I applaud that vision and commit to working as hard as I can as a member of this parliament to achieve that end. Let us acknowledge our history and understand the effects of past Commonwealth government policies on the Stolen Generations and their families. Let us learn from that experience and accept the challenges that this leaves us with. No more should we, through government decision-making, demean the rights and dignity of our citizens. We move on from this history, but let us never forget our obligation to ensure and maintain these basic human rights of dignity, comfort in knowing where you come from, and ensuring the rights enjoyed by all our citizens.
Madam Speaker, I dedicate this speech to all members of the Stolen Generations, but also to my mother, Dorcas, and to my brother, Charlie.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia traditional owners of this country. Today is the day of history. All of us here today know in our hearts the apology to the Stolen Generations has been a long time coming. The Prime Minister, Hon Kevin Rudd, today signalled a new beginning in relations between the first Australians and those who came later. It inspired me about the future.
What happened under successive governments hurt countless thousands of people, and that pain is still being endured by Aboriginal families from here in the Top End all the way to Tasmania. The representatives of many of the Territory families affected by those misguided government policies are here today to mark the significance of what occurred in Canberra early this morning. I acknowledge the strength of the people like those around us today for they have shown immense fortitude in the face of the indifference of successive Australian state and Territory governments over the years.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the audience and people reading this at a later date will forgive me if I do not mention their family’s name. It is appropriate to mention the names of people I know have been affected in any way:
Ah Chee, Ah Kit, Ah Sam, Bell, Bennett, Berto, Braun, Bray, Brogan, Brown, Burnley, Cahill, Calma, Cassidy, Clayton, Cusack, Croft, Croker, Daly, Ellis, Fejo, Hanson, Hayes, Heenan, Hopkins, Hunter, Kelly, King, Kruger, Laughton, Liddle, Liddy, Long, Lyons, Madden, Mathews, McGuiness, McLean, McMasters, McNamee, Mills, Mummery, Nicholls, Parfitt, Pearce, Peckham, Price, Randall, Read, Roberts, Ruddick, Ross, Smith, Scrymgour, Stanislaus, Stokes, Talbot, Tilmouth, Tomlins, Wauchope, Whiting, Wilson, Woodroffe, and Young.
Allan, Allay, Althouse, Anderson, Austral, Baban, Baxter, Benger, Bower, Bright, Briston, Bunn, Burke, Burnette, Campbell, Cardona, Cassidy, Clancey, Clarke, Cole, Collinson, Conroy, Corrie, Crosby, Cubillo, Cummings, Davis, Dean, Debush, Devery, Douglas, Friel, Frith, Gaston, Grant, Hagen, Hampton, Hanson, Harris, Hayes, Haywood, Henwood, Hewitt, Hill, Hoskins, Johnson, Jackson, Jones,-Noels, Kurnoth, Lardey, Lowe, McCarthy, Mackenzie, McLennan, McNee, Morecroft, Morecrome, Neeve, Newcastle, Nicaloff, Palmer, Parnell, Patterson, Paul, Pierce, Pillpot, Pocock, Raymond, Risk, Rose, Rotumah-Williams, Rusca, Ryan, Sariago, Shepherd, Sing, Swan, Thompson, Tilmouth, Walker, Walker-McClennan, Wauchope, Wesley, White, and Williams.
Bailey, Baird, Bennett, Bonson, Burke, Burns, Bush, Butler, Chisholm, Collins, Cooper, Costa, Cubillo, Cusack, Cussens, De Santis, Donald, Dunn, Fry, Gardiner, Grant, Greddon, Henry, Huddleson, Jeffrey, Leach, Lemon, Lolias, Lorenzo, Macauley, Madrill, Matsumoto, McGorm, McGuinness, McKee, McClennan, Morcom, Muggleton, Muir, Mulholland, Murphy, Parry, Patterson, Peckham, Pederson, Perkins, Rioli, Roberts, Ross, Scanlon, Shields, Stott, Stroud, Summers, Thompson, Tyson, Vigona, Wallace, Waters, Watkins and Young.
There are too many to mention, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, the words I would like to say I cannot.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I do not know how strong I will be. It is a special day and a sad day. I acknowledge the Larrakia people and traditional owners of this country and the Stolen Generations of today and of the past.
Today is an historic day for this parliament, and I speak in support of this motion regarding the national apology made today by the Prime Minister on behalf of the federal parliament to members of the Stolen Generations.
We stand on the threshold of a new chapter in Australia’s national story. At last, after years of contention, we have acknowledged one of the most distressing aspects of our past. A dark, secret shadow passes from us. We have the chance to move forward, secure in the knowledge that we can place and understand these events.
Apology and forgiveness presents us with the opening to forge a new national compact and build an Australia where all people are treated as citizens with equal rights. Those rights include good health, which allows the enjoyment of a full life, with education which opens the door to freedom of the mind, and good opportunities to participate in all the benefits of modern society.
The apology carries with it a strong desire to build stronger indigenous societies in remote and regional Australia. As the representative for one of the largest bush electorates in the nation - an electorate that has given Australia a wealth of art, dance, and traditional wisdom - I welcome this new day and hope with all my heart that the federal government and this government can work together to overcome disadvantage in remote Aboriginal Australia.
It is right and good to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, when policies, no matter how well intentioned in some cases, served to undermine and even to threaten the survival of Aboriginal civilisation. Equally, we should guard against failing or pursuing policies that have similar unintended consequences today.
The Prime Minister has often spoken of this wish to move forward and reduce the 17-year gap in mortality rates between mainstream and indigenous Australia. As all of us in this Chamber know well, that gap is much greater if we speak of the difference in mortality rates between remote communities and the capital cities of the south. If we do not undertake concerted action now - action deep and more far-reaching than any proposals we have yet seen or implemented - we will be dealing, not with the effects of the Stolen Generations in the past, but with a lost generation in the present, all across the bush. There is a gap of people spanned across the deserts and the remote north who need our help, our understanding and, above all, our action.
It is time for us to redouble our efforts on their behalf, to turn our thoughts to their future and their wellbeing. We should not rest easy until we have ensured the best medical and educational facilities for these citizens of our remote societies and given them the chance to thrive in a nation where fairness is seen on the ground as often as it is placed in speech.
We mark a happy day today; a day of understanding and concord. However, we have urgent work to do before we can stand together and look each other in the eye and claim that we have achieved equality of opportunity for all Australians, regardless of their race, background or place of residence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today certainly is an historic occasion for the nation. It is a new phase, a new chapter in our history. It is something that we eventually have had to come to grips with otherwise we would never go forward. I congratulate the Commonwealth government for bringing forward this apology. I believe it is something that the nation had to go through to move on.
About six years ago, we also debated this issue in our parliament. At that time, I spoke from the heart; it was something very personal to me. I will not repeat what was said because I felt that that was the time and the place to say that and, to repeat all of what I said, I believe, would not give service to what I said at that time.
I had a slightly different view from both the Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party at that time. I felt it was important that we did apologise to the Stolen Generations, but that we also had to be careful that we did not just isolate one group of people for that apology, when there were others at that time who also, perhaps, deserved an apology.
When I was young, I remember there were many unmarried women who, by coercion you might say, lost their children. Their children were given over to married couples. It was a phase in our society, in our life, where that seemed to be the solution to what we saw as a problem. It was the same with the Stolen Generations; we saw this as a solution to what we saw as a problem. There were even instances where children were put on boats from Britain after the war and sent to Australia with no idea whether they had any parents. So, there was a part of our history which is important, which deals with the Stolen Generations, but also deals with other significant facts that we should not ignore in this debate. As I said before, sorrow has no racial boundaries; all mothers despair the loss of their children, no matter the circumstances.
Regardless of the past and the problems we had, we should also recognise that there were people who did try their best, for better or worse, to help Aboriginal people. To some extent, when you are looking at this issue, it is not simply a black and white issue - and I do not put that in a silly context - it is a complex issue. We speak from the year 2008, when we are looking at issues of the past.
I wonder whether this is also an opportunity for us, as a nation, to reflect on something a little broader. Maybe we should have reflected on what changes the coming of European settlement has made to the lives of Aboriginal people. When one thinks of the intervention process, one can only feel there have not always been many positives. We - and I am referring to my race - sometimes with our superior Anglo-Saxon mentality, have sometimes had little regard for Aboriginal people because they were black and lived a different way to us. So, we squatted on their land and kicked them off to replace them with sheep and cows. We introduced alcohol and, more recently, drugs and pornography. Without land, many ended up on small parcels of land or on the fringes of townships, and we know the consequences of that.
Of course, there are many Aboriginal people today who are leaders in our society. More people are aware of the Aboriginal issues through the arts, sport and politics. I can mention with pride that, in the art field, my niece won the Telstra Award this year for the most popular piece of art which was about the Last Canoe. Her name is Kerry McCarthy. She wrote about her grandfather when he decided that he would bring all his children in from the Channel Point/Wadjigan area; that he would take his canoe that he had used for many years - he used to make canoes - and push it out to sea and then take all the children to Delissaville for school. It was like a breaking of the past for the future. He pushed it out and it came back again, so he walked out as far as he could go until the water was up to his neck and pushed it out again. That was the story that Kerry showed in her painting. There are many other people. Our Aboriginal art industry is so well renowned throughout the world and that is important.
Regarding people in sport, the member for Millner just mentioned a list of people. I reckon half of that list of people you would see in football teams, and in Rugby League teams, in the Darwin area. Their contribution has been great.
In politics, we have members of parliament - regardless of whether we always agree – who are Aboriginal. I am proud to stand in a parliament where there are Aboriginal people involved in the political system of the Northern Territory. It is wonderful. We have Aboriginal people who are making a positive contribution to our nation.
However, when you see the enormous problems we have with drugs and alcohol addiction, domestic violence, poor housing, low literacy and numeracy, little opportunity for real employment, and sexual abuse, you have to ask: did we, as a nation, leave this as our legacy to the original people? For that, I also say sorry.
I welcome the statement by the Commonwealth. We cannot ignore the past, but we need to continue to move forward, doing our best as a nation, to ensure that when we talk about how Aboriginal people are accepted in their own country, it is something we should not be ashamed of but something we should be proud of.
The Prime Minister, in his speech, also spoke about a new beginning and a new future. I also support the Prime Minister with that statement.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia people on whose land we have come together, in particular the families of the Stolen Generations who are here from families across the Northern Territory, and Nanna Hilda Muir and Nanna Muki and all the family with the recognition of the Yanyuwa and Garawa people from the Gulf of Carpentaria, and the history of Nanna Hilda Muir.
Today is an incredibly significant day for the people of Australia. It is an honour to stand here as the member for Arnhem and be a part of this parliament which already acknowledged, as the Chief Minister said, and made an apology to the Stolen Generations in 2001. It is certainly an honour to be a part of this parliament and the Labor government which saw this as something that was necessary in the Northern Territory; to acknowledge the pain and the suffering of members of the Stolen Generations and to acknowledge the history of the Northern Territory in the very first parliamentary sittings of the Labor government.
It is now an even greater honour to know that the first duty of the Labor government under the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Canberra parliament, has been to bring together all Australians to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the Aboriginal people of this nation - the suffering that has endured for many decades and continues on in the hearts of those who are here today.
I have spent a lot of time with my own family, and also with people in Arnhem Land, trying to understand their story and their history. I would like to reflect on what is significant about today. I have listened to members of the House and heard them talk about their own feelings. I heard the member for Blain talk about the need for this motion and this day to be more than just about words.
I would like to put this thought out there to colleagues in this Assembly, but also to every Australian: there comes a time in your life, in all our lives, where we must stop for a moment to reflect and think about that which makes us who we are, about where we have come from, and about where we are going. Today, on this most wonderful day in the history of our country, this nation is doing just that. All Australians are doing just that, because this one act in the parliament of this country acknowledges that the story of the Stolen Generations is real, as are all the stories of the people who have suffered under previous Commonwealth policies; that the pain is real; that the misunderstanding is very real; and that the constant denial is very real.
Today, our parliament, the people’s parliament in Canberra, has come together and said: ‘Yes, this happened to Aboriginal people in this country’. Whatever the intent, the pain that was endured and still endured is very real. It cannot be dressed up any more. It cannot be put aside and people told that the pain they experienced and the suffering they endured and the loss of their family was good for them. That is no longer the way it is going to be from this day forward. That is because we have had a courageous leader in Kevin Rudd – a courageous leader who acknowledged the pain and suffering that should have been acknowledged so very long ago.
The Bringing Them Home report is 11 years old. It is a report which tells the lives of so many Aboriginal Australians who stood before an inquiry revealing every ounce of their life story, for their country to read and to hear - 11 years ago. I say to the Prime Minister, not just as the member for Arnhem but as a Yanyuwa woman from Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria: thank you, Kevin Rudd, for having the courage. Thank you for having the courage to put in front of every Australian in this country what has been denied to Aboriginal people in this country; that is, their story.
Today is more than just a symbolic act; it hits at the heart and soul of our nation, of our beautiful country that we all call home. When I think about the stories, I think especially of Lorna Cubillo and of the late Peter Gunner, and how they fought in the Federal Court in the Northern Territory for just some sense of acknowledgement, to be understood, and to be respected for their stories. On that day when the judgment came down that they had lost, they felt an even greater disappointment, and a much more public sadness and, in some respects, a sense of humiliation because they had revealed their stories in the hope that some good would have come from it.
I say to Lorna especially, because I have never forgotten that day as just one of the many days when I have listened to the stories of many of our families: your story lives on. You know why, you mob? Your story lives on because the other important thing about today is that we have survived. We have survived, you mob! No matter the policies of the past, no matter the intent behind those policies, we are here; we are still talking. We have survived and your stories live on. They live on in your hearts and in the hearts of those who come behind you.
Today is that turning point. Today is the acknowledgement of all Australians that here is a part of our history that we can no longer deny, forget, or put to one side and say: ‘Just get on with it, do not worry about it’. That day is here for you.
I say to each one of you - to you, Nanna Hilda - I hope and pray that today is a day that fills our hearts with immeasurable joy and profound relief, to ease the pain of such disappointment, great sadness, and the absolute sorrow of the separation from your family and your people; that today will really begin to heal the heart from its bitter and sorrowful and, no doubt, very lonely journey. Today can be that day.
It was a journey where many Aboriginal Australians have felt misunderstood, denied, and forgotten in their struggle to endure and to be respected for the people they are; to create their own lives and lives for their children, to feel proud of who they are. You have survived! You will continue to survive, and your stories will continue to survive.
Today is your day, you mob! Today is your day. Embrace it, hold onto it and soak up the warmth of the goodwill, the love and the laughter that surrounds you on this day, because this day is your day. It is a day for all Australians to stop, to reflect, to think about who we are, where we have come from, and to ensure that where we are going, we go together. The hearts of all Australians right across this wonderful country - they now know your story. Now, perhaps, you will no longer be misunderstood and denied your story and, perhaps, no longer be lonely any more.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Barbara, that was a wonderful story. Why do I have tears in my eyes? Why do you have tears in your eyes? You should be happy. This should be a day of celebration, shouldn’t it? At last you have the federal government recognising your history.
That is what we must not forget. Your memories are always there - your memories of your loved ones are always in your heart - but there are times when you can say, let us move on. I thank the people in this House who have contributed in such a way that they have brought out their heart and soul. The member for Arnhem has done that.
This is a day when the Territory government should be proud also, because it now has the opportunity to work with the federal government to help ease the disadvantage that has occurred in the Territory for so long. There is no doubt that history has shown that Aboriginal families did suffer because of the policies of the day. We cannot change that, but we know it happened and we are recognising that. Even though the past will always remain - and it is a great idea to ensure that we have that history - we need to move on.
Do you remember when you where a little kid and you did something wrong and your mum or dad said to you: ‘Say sorry.’? You said sorry to whoever you had hurt, and it made everyone feel better. It is such a little word, but it means so much to people when they hear it. I believe the federal government has done something proud today for all Australia in saying just that little word.
I hope this motion by the federal government brings closure to many of the indigenous people who have suffered over many years. I hope it helps you, in your stories, to find comfort in what has been said. We know it may not appease all people. However, I believe the majority of Australians are saying to you: ‘Yes, it is about time, and we are happy that the federal government has done this. We will stand behind the Territory government when they seek assistance from the federal government to ensure that we benefit from this’.
I say to all the Aboriginal people who are here and throughout the Territory: be involved, be part of the future. Rejoice in what you have and ensure that you take on what the federal government is now offering. It is important that we all work together now to get the best outcome and look to the future. The Territory is a wonderful place to live.
An ex-student of mine from the 1960s said to me: ‘Are you still here?’ Yes, I am still here, because I love the Territory. It is a great place to be and I love the people of the Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the motion commending the Rudd Labor government and the Commonwealth parliament for their motion on the Stolen Generations. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament, I stand here today privileged to be in a position where I can take the opportunity to express my own personal feelings about the past injustices inflicted on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in particular, and throughout Australia. Today is undeniably a pivotal point in Australia’s history. It is very sad that it has taken 11 years to get an acknowledgement from the federal government.
Anybody who listened to the Prime Minister’s speech this morning would have been moved. It struck heartstrings across the nation. I believe many kids probably missed school this morning, and many people perhaps missed starting work at 8 am. It was something that I have not seen in my lifetime, where the nation stopped to listen to something that was very moving and reflected on our history - a history which has been denied and skewed over time for a vast number of philosophical reasons.
Policy initiatives based on race are not new. There are many and varied examples which are a blight on the history of civilisations through government controls, regulations and sanctions on race-based genocides, and/or the control, removal and deliberate segregation of the children of indigenous native occupants of the land. The implications of legislation pertinent to the Northern Territory was such that Aboriginal people could remain under the care and control of the Chief Protector or Director of Welfare, allowing him total control over the lives of any Aboriginal or half-caste, and make decisions on his or her welfare regardless of whether the welfare was required.
By the 1950s, some half-caste people were exempted under the legislation. However, half-caste children of Aboriginal mothers were automatically declared wards under the control of the Chief Protector by virtue of the fact that they had one or more native parent as defined under the act at that time. Full-blood Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory remained under the control of the Native Affairs legislation until self-government in 1978, and were not allowed to travel, marry, work, or protest about any decision made on their behalf or on behalf of their children. The children of these people were not only removed or segregated from immediate family, but expected to deny their parentage in order to assimilate.
Contact between these families was extremely difficult under regulations of the ordinance that controlled the movement of Aboriginal people, disallowing travel unless with the express permission of the Chief Protector. If these visits did occur they were strictly supervised to ensure the continued segregation of full-blood parents and their children so that the evil influences of full-bloods was contained. Incredibly, the prevailing view was that Aboriginal parents were less likely to grieve or suffer the losses through this removal as they were non-human, devoid of feeling and emotion. Aboriginal parents were unable to remove their children for visits or holidays, and visitation was discouraged by the erection of fences and borders, and regulations which defined half-castes and Aboriginals.
It is not difficult to envisage images from stories revealed about piccaninnies sneaking breastfeeding through the fences of these compounds, and young children having visits with their native mothers. Contact between them was expressly frowned upon and discouraged by missionaries to ensure that the bond between mother and child was broken. The assumption that the intent of these policies was for the benefit of Aboriginal people is a myth perpetrated by the Commonwealth government to justify its willingness to forcibly remove children.
Myth has no place in acknowledgement of past wrongs and must be immediately and emphatically quashed by the government. There is no question of the intent giving consent to the idea that the ever-growing population of half-caste children would need to be managed under the paternalistic view, implying that these children could be rescued and moulded into the class of people that could and would be able to make a meaningful contribution to society. Genocide was superseded by assimilation and then segregation, and sanctioned by the simple gesture that one problem appeared to exceed the other.
The laws of the Northern Territory to do with assimilation and injustice, perpetrated on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, stretch back to 1910. My son’s grandfather was forcibly removed and incarcerated in The Bungalows in Alice Springs. He is a very fine gentleman, a very proud gentleman. He talks with a smile on his face about the hardships, and that is his dignity. My daughter’s grandmother talks about those times also. Having a seven-year-old daughter and her grandmother in her late 50s, I guess, makes you reflect on the parallel time frame of someone coming in and taking my daughter, because I am a member of the Labor Party or I support the Hawthorn Football Club - no basis about the care or the welfare of that child. Someone can come in and grab my daughter and take her away and say that I cannot see her because of a particular trait within my character, or I come from some racial background. That is the core of this issue; that assumption that all full-blood Aboriginal people could not look after their children. The breeding out of the Aboriginal race was the sole intent of these policies.
You had situations where welfare officers would go in to communities - same community, same conditions - and they would take the half-caste child but leave the full-blood child there, under some premise that it was in the interests of the child. However, clearly, the children were in the same situation. You have situations where people do not know who their parents are. They do not know where their brothers and sisters are. This morning, we heard from Prime Minister Rudd how people were separated once from their families and then twice from their families, amongst their siblings - and the indiscriminate nature of that.
The significance for me, in this parliament, is that these were laws and policies of the government of the day. If we make any law in this parliament and we get it wrong, we have an obligation to say sorry. We have an obligation to say: ‘We got it wrong. We did the wrong thing’. Sadly, that has not been the case for far too long in the federal parliament, and I believe that has added to the distress of members of the Stolen Generations and their families. That is why today is a significant event. We have seen a new federal Labor government attending to it on the second day – straightaway as this Labor government did in the Territory some six-and-a-half years ago.
It is truly a momentous day. It will not fix the situation for members of the Stolen Generations, those Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed. It will not fix the flow-on effects on their families, the children of members of the Stolen Generations who are suffering socially and financially through their upbringing by their parents, but it does go a long way. The feeling, watching on the television and then listening on the radio, was truly momentous in this nation and that cannot be overlooked. The nation today is with the members of the Stolen Generations, with their families. It is saying: ‘We say sorry. We recognise as a parliament that we got it wrong and we have to take responsibility for it’.
Congratulations to the federal Rudd Labor government for introducing this motion. I thank other members in the Commonwealth parliament who have supported the motion. I thank my colleagues in this House who have spoken about it; it is truly a significant step. However, there is a long way ahead for the further issue of Aboriginal disadvantage, and that is going to be the next challenge. Let us enjoy today. Let us remember it forever in this nation’s history, but let us all work together for a brighter future. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, welcome to all the visitors to parliament on this momentous day in the nation’s history. It is important that the national parliament says sorry. In coming to this point, there was a debate about culpability and blame, and whether people of today should be apologising for actions of those in the past.
That argument missed an important point: parliaments are eternal. The Australian parliament, this parliament, and the others of the states and territories, are there in perpetuity. Those of us who are privileged to be within any of those Chambers are but passers-by; we have stewardship for a very short time before handing on to others. It is the responsibility of the parliament, not the individuals. That is why I feel that it is extremely important for the parliament to have apologised for a very bleak part of our history - one that took a great deal of time to even be recognised.
I pay tribute to the strength of those who fought to have this recognition. It is your day, a day for your families; an important day in which the whole nation is privileged to share - and ought to be privileged.
It is very difficult, I find, to speak when we have had speeches of the magnitude of the members for Barkly, Macdonnell and Arnhem. I hope the briefness of my contribution will not be thought of as disrespectful in any way. It is merely a recognition that I cannot fully express with the same skill as those previous speakers, beyond saying that the apology is not before time; that it represents, thankfully, the desire of the majority of people of this nation and forms an important part in the building blocks of this nation as it continues to develop its national identity of which indigenous people are a great and important component.
I am privileged to be able to call the members for Arnhem and Macdonnell sisters, as is the member for Port Darwin as well. It is a closeness of relationship. I was extremely privileged to have known the member for Arnhem’s mother and to have shared the joy of the Yanyuwa at the handover of their traditional lands.
It has been a long journey from terra nullius, all the way through to where we stand today, recognising indigenous culture, indigenous values, and the importance and complexity of the indigenous way of life. This, the recognition of the Stolen Generations and their pain, is but one more step in that greater national identity. I pay tribute to those families and wish them every enjoyment for today, and remember some of those who began the fight for recognition at its most difficult time and, unfortunately, did not see the ultimate fruits of their labours.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in closing debate on this motion today, I thank everyone who contributed, because we all are, I suppose, observers of what has happened in regards to the Stolen Generations, their histories and their stories. , We, obviously, have members of this House where it was very personal because of the immediate impact on their families and communities. In talking to some of the people in the gallery today outside, it truly has been a remarkable day for so many, particularly those old people whom we all know and have great affection for that, at last, towards the end of the rich and full lives that they have led, there is some sense of closure.
In talking to some of the people outside, people have mixed emotions; they are sad, reflecting on what happened to them and their families, and they are happy and relieved that at last the federal parliament of Australia has recognised the wrongs, the injustice and the devastation that the laws enacted by those previous parliaments have placed on individual people.
When listening to the debate across the national media today, I do not know who it was or what the context was, a question was put to non-indigenous Australians after the Prime Minister’s speech to reflect on how we would feel if authorities came into our homes and took our children away. I cannot even begin to comprehend how I would feel. To reflect that this happened to so many thousands and thousands of indigenous Australian families over a period of time from the late 1920s to the early 1970s is an absolute blight on this nation’s history. No matter what the policy intent was, the fact was that it happened and it should not have happened. It should not have happened because all of us sitting in here today would not even contemplate enacting such terrible laws.
Today, I believe, is a day of closure on that chapter of devastation that affected so many thousands of families right across Australia in indigenous communities, in the hope that, as the member for Arnhem said, we can all move forward together and actually right some of those terrible wrongs that have devastated so many families, so many communities, and start to put right those wrongs and build a better future for indigenous people across this great country of ours.
It has been an enormous day in Australia’s history. This parliament has played its small part. For the people who were here today in our galleries, I hope that all of those people go home and believe in their hearts that we can move forward together as a nation and really start to build a better life for indigenous people. The commitment is certainly here. I believe the commitment is on all sides of politics. We know there is a big job to do. The fact that the Prime Minister of Australia has embarked on a bipartisan way forward is a true reflection, I believe, of how all of the states, territories and the Commonwealth are going to come together. Very importantly, we have to engage our indigenous communities as we move forward. Solutions imposed will never be solutions, but joint commitments to move forward will certainly move forward.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House. I thank all honourable members for their contributions and, once again, congratulate the Commonwealth parliament of Australia and our new Prime Minister for, as he said at the closing of his speech today, calling for a new chapter in the history of this great land Australia.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As both the Chief Minister and I have detailed in the past couple of days, the bill I am introducing today is part of the broader strategy to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory. The strategy has three main elements and this bill contains the details of two of them: limiting access to diversion programs, and the introduction of the family responsibility agreements and orders. The third element, the introduction of youth camps in both Alice Springs and the Top End, is not one that requires legislative amendment at this stage. The investigation into the long-term youth camps is, as we have detailed, ongoing. I look forward to keeping the House updated on progress in this area.
As I said, this bill contains two major amendments to the Youth Justice Act. The first involves a limit being put on access to formal diversion. The bill does this by providing that the obligation to divert a youth does not apply if that youth has been previously referred to a diversion program or to youth conferencing on two or more previous occasions in respect of two or more situations.
Instead, where the youth has already had the benefit of two or more diversions to a program or youth justice conference, police will charge a youth with the relevant offence and that youth will go before the courts. This will not interfere with the overall discretion that police have in respect of charging and prosecution of offences. Additionally, there is a safeguard in the bill that allows the Commissioner of Police to authorise or require formal diversion in relation to any youths. It is envisaged that this provision will only be used in exceptional circumstances and is there solely to ensure that injustice does not result from the introduction of these new restrictions.
I now come to the second arm of this bill which introduces family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders. This initiative not only holds families accountable for the actions of their children but also provides family with the tools and motivation necessary through increased support services that I will detail shortly, to enable them to become better parents and work to address their children’s problematic behaviour. The purpose of this bill is to provide for an early intervention strategy. Its aims are to identify those youths who are engaging in low-level antisocial or even criminal behaviour and who are at risk of drifting into more serious crime, and provide assistance to their parents or guardians through a coordinated process of agreements and community and government support.
For a number of different reasons there are young people in the community who disengage with their family, their schools and the community. This might be due to poor guidance and support from their parents or guardians, or because of a family member’s substance abuse. The result is young people truanting from school and hanging around in public places late at night where they become involved in low-level antisocial or even criminal behaviour.
This bill, which amends the Youth Justice Act, recognises that in some cases behaviour of this kind is linked to behaviour or inaction at home. Where that link exists, authorised agents - generally from DEET, FACS, DOJ or police - will be able to enter into a family responsibility agreement with the parent or guardian of a youth up to the age of 18. Before entering into a family responsibility agreement, the authorised agency must be of the opinion that an agreement may assist the family to resolve its problems.
Where the youth does not live with a parent or parents, the bill allows the agreement to be made with whichever person has parental responsibility for the youth. This might be a grandmother or auntie or uncle, depending on the youth’s circumstances. A family responsibility agreement will be a written contract that requires the parent or guardian to undertake the obligations stated in the agreement. An agreement will have two objectives. The first is to enable the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively. To achieve this, an agreement might include that the parent or guardian attend a drug, alcohol or anger management program or counselling to assist the parents to address any other problematic behaviour such as gambling, if it is one or more of these behaviours that is getting in the way of the person providing effective parenting to the child in their care.
The other requirements of an agreement might include that the parent or guardian undertakes parental guidance counselling, join an appropriate support group, or undertake a program of personal development. Other requirements can also be built into the agreement where they are agreed by the parties and relevant to the effective care and supervision of the youth.
The second objective of the family responsibility agreement will be to focus the parent or guardian’s attention on the structured day-to-day needs of their child to ensure that they stay out of trouble. This means that agreements might also require the parent or guardian to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. In making these agreements, parents and guardians will not be left to their own devices; they will be assisted by an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will be charged to link them up with community services and programs and government support relevant to that person’s agreement and needs. In short, this officer will assist the parent to comply with the terms of the agreement. Importantly, no conditions will be included in an agreement with a family unless the services or facilities required for the parents or guardians to comply with the conditions are available in the area where the family lives. This is consistent with the objective of the bill, which is to help families rather than set families up to fail with conditions the parents or guardians are clearly not able to meet.
It is acknowledged from the outset that sometimes these voluntary agreements may not work. This might be because the parent or guardian refuses to enter or comply with an agreement, or where a child continues to exhibit the same problematic behaviour. In these circumstances, the agency can bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order. Police can also bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order where an agreement was not previously in place but where a youth has been charged with an offence or has breached a condition of bail. The application will be heard separately from the hearing for the prosecution of the offence. In all other respects, hearings following a police request for an order will proceed in the same way as those applications that commenced by way of family responsibility agreement.
Where an application is brought to the court, the court will conduct an inquiry into the family circumstances of the youth for the purposes of ascertaining whether those circumstances have caused or contributed to the youth’s problems. This inquiry will not be in the nature of a criminal inquiry. The process will simply operate to identify those aspects of the family arrangement that are preventing the parent and/or the youth from improving their behaviour and family circumstances, and determine whether the situation is likely to be improved by a family responsibility order. The court will not be bound by the normal rules of evidence in this and can seek information in any way it sees fit. In its inquiries into whether an order ought to be made, the court will be required to consider a number of matters before making an order. The court’s consideration of these factors will assist and determine whether an order is the correct measure to take. These factors include whether the members of the family suffer from any type of mental or physical disability that would cause the youth’s behaviour, or whether the parents have attempted to manage or control the youth’s behaviour. These and other factors will guide the courts in their decision-making and act as safeguards for those who appear before the court.
If, after the inquiry, the court considers that the youth’s family situation is likely to be improved by a family responsibility order, the court will proceed to make one. Available terms for an order will mirror the terms of a family responsibility agreement, including possible conditions relating to the parent or guardian’s own behaviour, the need for counselling, parental guidance support, or other personal development. The court will have the discretion to order the parent or guardian to undertake whatever program it considers will help the parent or guardian to better manage their own life and behaviour so that they can provide effective care and supervision of the young person in their care.
Orders might also contain conditions that compel the parent or guardian to exercise proper care and supervision of the youth and take all reasonable steps to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. An order can be put in place for a child between the ages of 10 and 18 for a maximum term of 12 months. Again, there will be an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will assist the parent or guardian to comply with the terms of the order. This officer will engage with the family to provide appropriate referrals to community service providers, government agencies and programs as required, as well as monitor compliance with the order for the purpose of reporting the family’s progress to court.
The difference between a family responsibility agreement and a family responsibility order is that a court order will compel the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively, and to exercise proper supervision of the youth in their care.
As with all orders of the court, if the parent or guardian does not comply with the conditions contained in the order, there will be a penalty. This will only proceed if the parent or guardian does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an order, and after reasonable attempts by the Family Responsibility Program to achieve compliance have failed. In this case, a fine of up to $2200 can be imposed. Where a fine is not paid, it will be enforced through either seizure of non-essential household goods, or the issuing of a Community Work Order.
As with all court orders, there is provision for the variation and revocation of an order by the parties. This builds in the necessary flexibility required to respond to changing circumstances. Any decision of the court will be based on whether the variation or revocation sought is in the best interests of the child, consistent with one of the overriding principles of the bill. This ensures that the necessary objective of the scheme is maintained and avoids abuse of the provision.
Also included in the bill is the provision for the protection of the names of family members from publication. This will mean that youths and their parents will not be shamed by being named in the media if an application for an order is sought. This recognises that this process is to assist families to improve their situation, rather than any naming and shaming or potential harassment of the individuals involved. This prohibition from publication will also apply to any third party; for example, a person named in an order as someone the youth should avoid.
Consistent with this respect for the personal privacy of those involved in this process, this government has also approved the development of a code of practice. This will be an administrative process to be overseen by the Information Commissioner that will ensure that, where the personal information of the subject family is shared between the agency and, perhaps, another agency and the Family Responsibility Program for the purpose of administering family responsibility agreements and orders, it is protected from disclosure. A code of practice will require that the use of all personal information is consistent with the information privacy principles contained in the Information Act.
So that government can roll out this project in an orderly way, the bill contains provision for regulations to be made that limit the operation of the bill in respect to the power to make family responsibility orders to particular regions or parts of the Territory. This will mean that government will determine which areas of the Territory will be brought in under the umbrella of this project and at what time.
Finally, the bill provides a mechanism for review of the legislation after 12 months. This will give government the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of family responsibility agreements and orders, and determine if changes to the scheme are required.
It is important to note that these amendments are not intended to replace the process in the Community Welfare Act, or the soon-to-be-commenced Care and Protection of Children Act, where a child is at risk of maltreatment. These amendments are intended to assist the families of youths who are experiencing difficulties to get back on track. The family responsibility agreements and orders will provide a structured approach to addressing the individual difficulties experienced by some families in the community, and assist those parents and guardians who may not recognise the importance of their role in the provision of responsible parenting.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 October 2007.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this amendment bill is supported by opposition. We understand the need for it. However, there are a number of matters that do need to be clarified when we look at the waterfront. I take this opportunity to present those matters so that we can have a better understanding of this very important project to government and to the tourism sector, and to the Top End in particular.
The first relates to the time line. This convention centre was promised by mid-2007 and still has not been completed. That is a concern and I trust that, in the minister’s response, there will be some reference given to the commitment that was initially made to the Territory community regarding when the project, or particularly the convention centre, would be brought to completion. The original Darwin co-consortium draft master plan clearly indicated that the whole of Stage 1 was to be completed by the end of 2007.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: The Darwin co-consortium draft master plan clearly indicates …
Mr Henderson: Those were documents before financial close.
Mr MILLS: … that the whole of Stage 1 was to be completed by 2007.
Mr Henderson: Before financial close.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity in a moment to clarify that, but that is what was clearly presented to the Territory community.
Second, there was a clear understanding presented to the Territory community that the cost of the project - and the words that were carefully used at the time were ‘the entire site’ - and the commitment for the entire site would be $100m - and very importantly described - in today’s dollar terms. That ‘entire site’ seems to imply Stages 1, 2 and 3. That was not clarified at the time. It appears now that the costs have exceeded $100m in today’s dollar terms. Therefore, we need to have an update on the costs associated with this waterfront development.
There was a briefing on 26 July 2007. Stage 1 commitment by the Territory had expanded then to $149m in today’s dollar terms. I am deliberately using those words because, if the government was approaching a commitment that it is making in the future sense, it would change the value terms. However, when the government is trying to tie it down, we have it in today’s dollar terms. What does it mean in reality? How much is that? Certainly, it has gone from $100m when the implication was that it was for all stages. One could be quite justified to think that the whole thing is going to cost $100m. However, Stage 1 is going to cost $149m. We do need some more information on that.
It is interesting also that the draft master plan promised a whole range of things. This was the proposition that was placed before the Northern Territory community at the beginning. You may recall, honourable members who are all sitting there eagerly listening to all this, that there were master plans presented in shopping centres, a special little shop in the mall, and there were road shows where everyone could get a good look at it in its very early stages.
Things were painted in a particular way at that stage. The cost and when it would be completed were presented to the community. Those two things have changed; we need some more explanation on that. There have been attempts from the opposition to have these matters raised but we are told it is commercial-in-confidence. Good heavens! It was a contract, I believe, made with the Territory community.
When this was presented to the Northern Territory community, they were shown all of these wonderful things that would be included in the project which would be there for public use. The draft master plan promised the following: it referred to art markets – they have gone; it referred to water gardens – they have also gone; barbecue and picnic area – it is not there anymore; sculpture walk – not there; seating terraces – gone; marker tower – gone; food market stalls – gone; water sports – gone except for pay-as-you-use wave pool; amphitheatre – gone …
Mr Conlan: Beach umbrellas.
Mr MILLS: Beach umbrellas – they have gone too, as has the lagoon; that is if the wave pool has one. I would like to get an update on this wave pool. We do not hear much about it any more. Beach volleyball has gone. We thought we were going to get that. There are a heck of a lot of things on this list that are now missing. Retail promenade – well, that is still there because that can make money. But public amenity so far is missing. The things we were told in those beautiful presentations around the community - all missing. Casual seating – well, that is probably still there because you have to keep park benches. Swimming pools have gone in favour of a user-pays wave lagoon. Lifeguard tower - I trust that is still there. Caf - I am sure that is going to be there in some form. Children’s playground – gone. The Waterfront Promenade is still there. Cultural and historical centre – gone; it is a restaurant now. The restaurant has been moved to where the cultural centre was going to be. Sea wall walk - that is still there. Convention centre - nearly there, but they told us it was going to be there last year. A hotel – that is still there.
In short, if you pay for using it, it is still there. If you want to get a freebie and have a public amenity for the tax investment that Territorians have invested in this project - which is now costing more than what they were told in the first place - not only are you paying more, but you are getting less.
They are the open, honest and transparent guidelines that I would expect a sincere and genuine government to communicate to the community. You can put out the glossies and all these trinkets and toys: ‘Don’t worry, folks, it is going to be fantastic’. Then you find that it has all been stripped bare, back to the basics.
I had a very interesting discussion with a journalist the other day. If you have the weight of numbers you can play with the ideas in their head and keep them lobbied and pressured and focused in the way that you want them focused. We were talking about major infrastructure projects and that Access Economics said: ‘Big trouble ahead for the Territory’ because ...
Mr Henderson: It did not say that.
Ms Lawrie: They are not saying that.
Mr MILLS: You obviously did not read it either ...
Mr Henderson: I did read it. It did not say ‘big trouble ahead’.
Mr MILLS: Do you recall – Madam Deputy Speaker, protect me, please - it said, ‘big trouble ahead’.
Ms Lawrie: They said we are going to be the highest growth in the nation for the next five years.
Mr MILLS: There you go, you guys. You must have a spin factory up there; you just believe the spin. Can you not even read the Access Economics reports by yourself without someone breathing into your ear: ‘Yes, this is the good stuff; do not worry about the bad stuff’? The Access Economics report said that Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory all bear the influence of a resources boom. It said all our eggs are in the China basket so, when China goes ...
Mr Henderson: They did not say that.
Ms Lawrie: They did not say it.
Mr MILLS: I am going to have to table this thing, you poor guys. You guys have staff coming out your ears, and you do not even know what is written in the report ...
Mr Henderson: Yes, I read it.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, we do actually know what is written in it. You are not representing what is written in it.
Mr Henderson: Table it
Mr MILLS: I will, do not worry. I will have to circulate it. Four opposition, and you are happy to beat us up here. I am happy to read the report, but you deny what is in the report ...
Mr Henderson: You can’t mislead the House.
Mr MILLS: It said all the nation’s eggs are in the China basket …
Ms Lawrie: No.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it did. The nation’s eggs are in the China basket, the resources boom is having a positive effect on Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory. However, it says that the Territory has potholes ahead because it is missing major infrastructure projects over the horizon.
The point of this is, that this journalist that I spoke to - because it had obviously been plugged straight into the fifth floor and there had been information such as the stuff you are spouting now, all the good stuff, and you missed all the other part of it – said: ‘Isn’t the waterfront a major infrastructure project?’ Not really, not on the scale that Access Economics refers to. Major infrastructure projects are oil and gas, and we have Alcan and ConocoPhillips. The waterfront is another type of development that does not fit in the same league that the Access Economics report was weighing up.
Therefore, we have to recognise that there has been an involvement of government, on behalf of taxpayers, Territorians, and an understanding established in the mind of the community, but that understanding is now altered by the actions of government. You have demanded more and invested, and required more from the community and given them less in return.
There are other aspects of the waterfront, and it is necessary that we have a talk about it. Before you come out with a churlish and shallow point-scoring exercise, trying to say, ‘You hate the waterfront, you hate the waterfront’, you need to develop a more mature and sophisticated line.
Some of those matters have been addressed - and you have tried this before. You raise matters like this and, rather than attend to them, you will bat it away and try to paint the opposition as though we hate the waterfront. That is nonsense. We are in opposition to ask questions and, hopefully, if we have a genuine government, they will provide some answers. We do not often get that; we get the spin, the hype, the denials of anything that is slightly unfavourable to the carefully crafted image that government endeavours to present. There are a number of issues. That said, it has given me an opportunity to say some of those things, and there is more to come.
We will not oppose the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Amendment Bill. We support it, but there are a number of issues related to this project of which the community needs to be advised. I am wondering why you do not spend all your time in the shopping centres and out in the marketplace with your glossy brochures explaining the stuff you have taken away. You do not. You like to tell all the front-end stuff to make yourselves look good. When it does not look good, you either blame someone like the opposition - poor old opposition - or someone else. You have changed your position and you do not have the sincerity to communicate your changed position. Pay more, getting less. We support the amendment, however.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill, but I would be happy to go to committee to discuss one clause if that is possible.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support, but I am going to have to address some of the diatribe contributed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that the opposition has hated this project from day one. From the day it was conceived they have railed against it, complained about it …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They have railed against it and have used every single opportunity to bag this project. I have been in this place a fair time and I have been in the Territory for nearly 25 years. There were some former members of CLP governments in days gone by who would be spinning on their heels to see the CLP in opposition now bagging a major infrastructure project for the Northern Territory ...
Mr Mills: Bagging the project? We are not bagging the project.
Mrs Miller: I do not know how you sleep at night with the spin. I really do not know.
Mr HENDERSON: This is a party that used to dream big, used to think big and used to love the big projects. Today, they are reduced to grumbling, sniping and trying to pull down what is …
Ms Lawrie: Whining!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am very concerned. The member for Karama said I was lying …
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not, I said ‘whining’
Mr Mills: Oh, whining. My apologies. It is almost as bad.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, they are consistent from day one from conception. They have tried to tear this project down and they will not succeed. They will not succeed because this is a project that will deliver additional investment, jobs, and economic growth for the Northern Territory for years and years to come. Even the Auditor-General - I do not have exact figures in front of me - acknowledged that the multipliers in GDP growth and jobs growth for the Territory are just extraordinary. I would have thought the new leader would have come in and decided to take a different view rather than trying to tear this down, because many people in the business community scratch their heads and wonder where on earth the opposition is coming from.
The convention centre has injected $66m into this economy in Darwin, with 180 people employed on an almost day-to-day basis. The convention centre already has 23 or 24 conventions booked for 2008-09 with 8200 tourists who will be coming to Darwin, our capital city, who would not have been coming unless the convention centre was here. Malu Barrios already has 30-odd people on the books, and all of those people have been recruited from the Northern Territory, she was telling me the other day. And they continue to bag it and talk it down!
The CLP’s vision for the old industrial area at Stokes Hill Wharf was, essentially, a concrete – it looked like a car park, with a big spire. The convention centre that they dreamt about – which we are actually building - was going to be put in the middle of town somewhere, next to somebody’s hotel, fully-funded by the taxpayer, with no public/private partnership, and no leveraged investment. They had run out of ideas and they still have no ideas. For somebody who purports to be a future Chief Minister, to be nitpicking around what everybody acknowledges will be a very significant economic multiplier for the Northern Territory is really quite bizarre.
This project will leverage between $800m to $900m of private sector investment in Darwin - in today’s dollar terms, an investment of around $140m. The reason we cannot be exact is that we will be getting returns on property sales into the future and, with the property market going the way it is at the moment, who knows what those returns are going to be.
Regarding the Auditor-General, it has all been through actuarial advice, and the Auditor-General has ticked off on this. This is a project that will deliver for Territory taxpayers. It will deliver jobs and investment. What it will also deliver, regarding those conventions that come to this great city of ours, is people from professional backgrounds or walks of life - whether it is the medical profession, the accounting profession, the engineering profession - coming to conventions in Darwin and saying: ‘What a fabulous place this is. Why am I stuck in the traffic in Sydney for two or three hours a day when I and my family could be living in Darwin? There are plenty of jobs here, there are plenty of opportunities here. They may move to Darwin, Madam Speaker.
There will also be people coming to conventions who will be coming from commercial sectors, from business sectors. They will come to this great Territory of ours, to Darwin, and say: ‘Gee, why haven’t we got a commercial interest up here? This place is on fire! We are going to invest!’ That is what this project is going to deliver for Darwin.
Outside of that, over 20 years, I think it is around $193m additional to the tourism industry. I would think that the member for Katherine would acknowledge that this is going to be good for tourism. I acknowledge that the member for Katherine has an interest in tourism but, really, all we hear is knock, knock, whinge, whinge, whine, and whine about the convention centre.
The issue in regard to the documents the member was talking about, and the time line of mid-2007, I got to the bottom of last week. Once again, they have some old documents buried in the drawer up there on the fourth floor. These were a series of information sheets, as the project was progressing through the various stages of being out for bid in the commercial sector, documents that were produced to keep the community informed about the progress of this project prior to financial close. They were indicative time lines, and they were working papers whilst we were out to tender, working through the preferred bidders during negotiations in the final conclusions around contractual arrangements and before financial close. Therefore, to waltz out into the public and say, ‘Here it is, you promised it would be finished by mid-2007’, is a furphy.
The reality is that the convention centre is three months ahead of schedule, and that is good news …
Mr Mills: What?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is three months ahead of contracted schedule. If you care to go down - we know you guys do not know anybody in the business community any more ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: If you were to talk to Steve Margetic of Sitzler Bros, which has done a magnificent job on the construction of this convention centre …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Talk to Steve Margetic and he will tell you it is three months ahead of contracted schedule! He scratches his head and thinks: ‘Gee, what is that Terry Mills on about? He is complaining about this magnificent project’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you please pause. Honourable members, there is a considerable …
Mr Conlan: Channel this energy into the oncology unit and addressing law and order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there has been a considerable amount of interjection and interruption in the last half hour. I remind you of Standing Order 51 and also Standing Order 69:
The interruption of a member, Standing Order 69:
I have to say that I have not heard any of those things in this last little while. I will be listening very carefully in the future to all members.
Mr Mills: Looking both ways, I trust, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I looked both ways.
Mr Mills: Yes, thank you.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, I was just going to ask that point of order, Madam Speaker, that it applies both ways.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Katherine. Please resume your seat. Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the Access Economics document here and, if we go to it, it demonstrates that we are going to have the highest growth rates in the nation for the next five years in GDP growth and employment growth. It does not say that this economy is – I forget the turn of phrase from the honourable member …
Mr Mills: Hitting a pothole.
Mr HENDERSON: No, you said it was plummeting or a downfall or whatever ...
Mr Mills: No, I said hitting a pothole.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: What it does say is:
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition did not get the paper on Monday, 4 February 2008, which talked about the $5bn worth of construction activity that is going on in the NT right now. I do not know which cave the Leader of the Opposition lives in to not know that there are more cranes on the skyline in Darwin than there are in Brisbane at the moment, and we are going through a very strong phase of economic growth. All we have is the opposition using every opportunity to knock this great project.
It is going to be delivered. It is employing hundreds of people and investing millions of dollars into our economy. The legacy of the foresight of this government in investing in this project will see significant GDP growth, significant jobs growth, and significant population growth for the Northern Territory for many years to come.
I am very pleased that the opposition support the amendments in this bill - that they did not even discuss at all. I am sure that the member for Nelson will have some pertinent, relevant questions pertaining to the bill in the committee stage. I know the member for Nelson does his work in regard to legislation and doing the job that we are all accountable for, which is scrutinising the legislation that comes before this House and ensuring that everybody has an understanding of it before we pass it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I put this to the committee stage because I would like to get a better understanding of exactly what this means. Clause 5(3) says:
This relates to section 18 of the act which states:
18. Corporation exempt from certain taxes and charges
First of all, Chief Minister, how does section 18 of the existing act work if the area of the waterfront is actually not part of the Darwin municipality? It says here ‘the corporation, as the owner or controller of the land’, but we have taken the waterfront out of the Darwin municipality which would be the normal council that would charge rates. What does that mean, because it looks like it is talking to itself? Maybe I am wrong there.
My next question to follow from that was: how can a lessee be charged for rates? That gives you an idea of the two areas I am trying to follow. How does this work in practice?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I hope I get this right in explaining it to the member for Nelson. This is an integrated commercial/retail/residential precinct. It is a major project. The intention of the government was always that this project would be encompassed within the Darwin City Council boundaries for the provision of municipal services. That is where we wanted to go.
Unfortunately - and this is the truth as I see it - the council, under the leadership of the previous Lord Mayor, Peter Adamson, took the view that they did not support the project either and did not want the responsibility of providing municipal services. We were not going to allow that position to take shape. Obviously, in the provision of municipal services, if the council does not want to or will not provide them, then this act was put in place to establish a corporation, the requirements of which are to, essentially, manage the property and the precinct and deliver those municipal services as part of its functions.
That is the history of it; we will get to the specifics in a moment. I am pleased to say that, with the change of Lord Mayor, there is debate and dialogue now reoccurring. There is a draft contract of services with Darwin City Council and negotiations are happening in regard to, potentially over time, the city council reversing their current position and accepting the waterfront development into their boundaries. However, discussions are happening, which is good, whereby they were not previously happening.
Regarding the amendments that are before us, these are just about clarification of the capacity for the corporation to actually levy rates, not only on the residential people who are going to be within the boundary that this act covers, but also commercial operators. The advice from the legal people was the act was unclear about whether the corporation had the capacity to levy rates to people who had commercial leases within those boundaries. There is also an amendment to make it very clear that the corporation has the ability to enter into arrangements with Darwin City Council or other bodies on a fee-for-service basis to provide services to the community that will be living within those boundaries.
I do not know how that answers your question, member for Nelson, but the amendments in this act clarify that the corporation will have the ability to enter into arrangements for the provision of municipal services if there is agreement to do so, and also that lessees of land owned by the corporation are liable to pay rates. That is to clarify not just for people with residential rights, but that commercial lessees of land are also liable to pay rates to the corporation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister. I am not trying to be political here, but just from a functional way that the council should run regardless of who is mayor or president, I would expect that person to reflect the majority view of the councillors, regardless of who is in charge. I imagine the council would have voted for that particular policy. Hopefully, that is the way good councils run.
Mr HENDERSON: Those same councillors are now coming around.
Mr WOOD: Oh, that is fine and fair enough. To me, that is what council should be about - reflecting what the councillors themselves say.
I will not go on with this too long. Can I get it clear that the reason that section 18 is there is because the corporation could be charged for rates by whom? By the government? It says here the corporation, as the owner or controller of land in the precinct, is not liable for any rates. Who would rate that corporation? If it does not belong to the municipality of Darwin, would that mean that the government would rate it? Does the government actually still own the land underneath this? Am I wrong there as well?
Mr HENDERSON: These amendments make it clear that the corporation itself is not liable for any rates or levies.
Mr WOOD: From whom would that be? Who would actually charge the corporation a rate if it is not in the Darwin municipality?
Mr HENDERSON: Section 18 says that the corporation is exempt from certain taxes and charges; however, the owners of residential property are not exempt from taxes and charges and rates. Taxes and charges on the sale of residential property, such as stamp duty and what have you, are payable to Northern Territory Treasury. Because Darwin City Council decided that they were not going to be providing municipal services to the residential and commercial properties that are going to be within these boundaries, the corporation can levy rates on those properties for the provision of municipal services. The amendment makes it clear that people who do not have freehold title there but lease land for commercial purposes - maybe the hotel, shops and other commercial entities - are liable to pay rates to the corporation.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. If you read this amendment, it refers to section 18 of the original act. It says the corporation, as the owner and controller of land in the precinct, is not liable for any rates. Someone would have to charge them a rate for them to be exempt of the rate.
Mr HENDERSON: Further clarification from the good departmental people. Regarding section 18, Corporations exempt from taxes and charges, the corporation has been, in part, set up to provide municipal services, and has been given specific powers under this legislation to charge rates to both residential and commercial people within the land which the waterfront contains. Because they have been given the capacity to levy those charges, the act is clear that it goes to an accounting, book entry thing, that they are not able to charge themselves any rates. Although they have been established as owning the land - it is because they own the land, unless it is residential freehold land - they have been established to provide municipal services, and there is no requirement for them to pay rates on the land that they own that is not leased. Does that make sense?
Mr WOOD: I ask the question: why, therefore, is it in the act? It is a bit like saying the Darwin City Council should be exempt from paying rates on its own property. It would be nonsensical. All right, that is fine. I needed to get that clarified, because my second question relates to the amendment.
Normally, and I may be wrong here – I tried to clarify it today and could not get clarification – you can only pay rates on land, because rates are a charge on the land. Here, you are charging a rate on the lessee who does not own the land. I envisage that, normally, the owner of the shopping centre would be rated, and he would pass that rate through the rent on to the lessees.
Mr HENDERSON: The amendment makes it clear, as I said before, that entities that have a commercial lease with the corporation are not exempt from rates. However, it does not necessarily mean that the corporation will charge them rates. It just makes it clear they are not exempt from paying rates, and that is the intention of the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I understand, but what I am saying is – and this may be a technical thing – if they decide to charge rates on people who lease property on their land, should it be called a rate or should it just be called a levy? Normally a rate, when you read the definitions of it, is a rate on the land. They do not own the land, therefore, how can you rate the lessee? Or should you forget the word ‘rate’ altogether and say they have the ability to levy the lessees for municipal services?
Mr HENDERSON: As advised, the amendment goes to section 18. The amendment does not just go to the issue of rates, it also goes to stamp duty and any other fees or charges that may be applied to commercial or residential property, and makes it very clear that the corporation itself is exempt. Regarding people who have a commercial lease with a corporation, they are not exempt. It does not just go to the issues of rates, it also goes to the issue of stamp duty and any other taxes and charges that may be part of it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Chief Minister, I understand that but, of course, the amendment does refer to section 18, and that section says that it is not liable for any rates. My argument is: can you actually say that to a lessee; that they are not liable for any rates when you cannot charge them rates because they actually do not own the land. It might sound technical but I am trying to clear up that that is really a valid thing you can put in the act.
Mr HENDERSON: My advice from departmental officers is that this has been worked through with Parliamentary Counsel and Justice officers. The debate is about whether we should be using the words ‘rates’, ‘fees’ or ‘charges’. I am advised that this is to provide for consistency of understanding and this is the way the legislation has been drafted on advice to provide for that consistency of understanding. It is just making it very clear – well, clear to me - that commercial entities who have a lease with the corporation are liable to pay not only rates, but any other taxes and fees and charges that are payable on a commercial lease. The advice that I have is that this wording is appropriate, for want of a better term. I am not in a position to further argue the merits of the word ‘rates’. I trust that, if the Justice and Parliamentary Counsel people are wrong, we will be bringing it back here for an amendment, and I will defer to your knowledge and wisdom on this matter and be the first to say you were right.
Mr WOOD: My knowledge is not always right either. I will leave it at that. It was an issue that I felt does not apply only to commercial people, the way I read it, it applies to someone, I presume, who could lease a block of flats or a unit on a property as well. I would have thought it would have been better to say, ‘You are not exempt from levies and charges, because that is all you do. The cost included in your lease is a fee which covers municipal charges’. I was probably working on the technical term ‘rate’ which should not apply to a lessee. I would prefer if there were to be a levy or a charge, so you did not get that confusion in what a ‘rate’ actually meant. I am quite happy to leave it at that. Thanks for the explanation, Chief Minister.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 November 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I respond to the second reading speech for the Transport Legislation (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. The opposition supports this bill in principle, as there is no doubt we need to have legislation in place that makes it an offence to drive while under the influence of drugs. There are a couple of areas though, minister, where I do not believe you are tough enough. I will talk about those at a later stage.
It is very important to send a clear message to motorists that driving under the influence of drugs is not acceptable. It as an offence, just as drink-driving is an offence. It is obvious from the number of serious accidents in the Northern Territory that it would be highly likely that drugs have been involved, and it is ludicrous to think that police have been unable to press charges for this offence, yet can do so for drink-driving. Drug-driving can be just as dangerous and, in some instances, more dangerous than drink-driving.
An example of a serious accident caused by a driver under the influence of drugs was the collision of two road trains on the Stuart Highway north of Pine Creek. That was about 12 to 18 months ago. This accident, fortunately, did not result in any human fatalities but, because one of the road trains was carrying cattle, there was a loss of livestock. The accident involving these two trucks created a huge cleanup and, fortunately, resulted in only a limited time that the traffic was held up which was due entirely to the professionalism of the truck companies involved. Getting back to the cause of the accident, one of the drivers was heavily influenced by drugs and police did not have the power to test him, which is quite ludicrous.
For drivers who regularly take drugs, they would have been well aware that there was this loophole in the law and, no doubt, would have exploited it time and time again. Therefore, it is a positive step that this is being introduced.
I am a little curious about the legal disparity between the capacity of police to test drivers for drink-driving and drug-driving, and wonder why this legislation is not tougher on drug-driving. As the minister proposes, if a police officer wants to test a driver for drink-driving there is no requirement for any type of grounds. The proposed section 29AAB gives power to police to apprehend the driver of any vehicle at all for the purpose of conducting a roadside breath test. However, the section limits police from demanding a roadside saliva test to the drivers of vehicles that are over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. This means the ordinary motorist cannot be randomly tested for drugs but can be randomly tested for alcohol.
Proposed section 29AAF deals with the police power to demand saliva for a drug test but, before the demand can be made, the police officer has to suspect that the person has committed a drug-driving offence or has been involved in a crash. For practical purposes, this means that the police officer has to form a suspicion in their mind because of observations about the driver such as glazed eyes, a traffic breach, or perhaps even slurred speech. It is an entirely sustainable argument that if a police officer has entirely random powers for drink-driving tests, then such powers should extend equally to drug-driving tests. It is up to the police how they use these powers in a practical way.
Second, the offence structure means that upon your first offence for drug-driving, police can merely issue drivers with a traffic infringement notice which is similar to how a lower level drink-driving offence - exceeding between 0.05 and 0.08 - offence is dealt with. That is a positively mild slap on the wrist for a drug-driver and it stands in stark contrast to this government’s zero tolerance attitude towards illicit drugs. I agree that it should be zero tolerance.
The changes that I would like you to consider, minister, are first, that the powers of police to demand saliva should be random as it is within their powers to demand breath samples and, second, that the traffic infringement notice be removed as the first tier of punishment and, where a person is convicted of drug-driving they should be treated as low-level drinkers in the first instance only, then, as a medium-range blood alcohol content for a second offence, and as a high-range blood alcohol content for every subsequent offence. That would be consistent with government’s policy on drink-driving and will send a clear message to the driving public.
Police need the power to apprehend the driver of any vehicle at all for drink and drug testing. To get the message out, random drug testing should be carried out as comprehensively as possible, as soon as possible. There is no point in being half-hearted about getting that message out.
I was reading an article in Reportage, dated 9 July 2005, where Dr Philip Swann who is the manager of Drugs, Alcohol and Fatigue at VicRoads Safety stated:
That was in 2005, and I assume that those figures are not much different today.
I am aware that the drug test that is being proposed for use when this legislation is in place is sensitive to mishandling, so it is very important that police officers who are nominated to carry out the test are to be highly skilled - as I am sure they will be. These tests need to be accurate the first time and without question, which brings me to another question. Where will the drug tests be analysed and do we have the facilities to do that in the Northern Territory? If not, it might be a good time now to do something about that. I would appreciate it if you could give an answer to that in your reply. As Philip Swann also said, at the end of the day these tests are about road safety, not drug taking.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill with those two reservations that I have identified that I would like to see strengthened.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill; it is a positive change. I note that one of the changes has been the simplification of the rules in relation to breath testing. It is much clearer for people who are trying to understand what the legislation means.
The area that I am concerned about is the bit you have left off; that we do not have random drug testing. Chief Minister, in your second reading speech, you said a number of things. Random …
Ms Lawrie: I am not the Chief Minister. I could not hear you. I am having difficulty hearing you. Could you speak up a bit?
Mr WOOD: I shall speak louder.
Madam SPEAKER: The noise is from the re-cabling project, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: The area I am concerned about is the section you have left out - random drug tests, similar to random alcohol tests. You said in your second reading speech:
You quote Lenne 2004:
Further, you said:
You also said:
Then, you introduced legislation which is, basically, to cover some random breath tests for drivers of heavy vehicles 4.5 tonnes and greater where they actually submit a saliva test. However, we have not done it for the people you spoke about in your second reading speech. That is a big gap.
There may be issues of how much that would cost. I understand in an area as big as the Territory that that may be a problem. When you take into account the statements you have made, and the emphasis that you have shown us on the fact that drugs are a major problem on the roads, I feel it is a bit late to be testing drivers after they have had an accident. That is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. You say that you can test a driver if the police officer thinks that person is a risk. However, a police officer has to see that happening somewhere to do that whereas, at a random alcohol testing - or if we had a random drug testing - facility, you would not have to worry about the police accidentally finding someone who looks like they might be at high risk driving. Therefore, whilst I support what the government is trying to do, and this is bringing legislation up to a standard that I presume is in most states, I believe there certainly is a gap.
I believe that what you have done is good. The other point is that demerit points are not included in these offences. I do not want to harp too much on the commentary made when I referred to hoon legislation, in relation to when we are ever going to get back to confiscating vehicles at the first offence as in other states. I will get on to that at some other debate at some other time. However, you said to me: ‘We have demerit points!’ No, no, no. You have demerit points there when I do not think they need to be there. Just take the car away. What we want in the hoon legislation is to get the noise and the kids off the road.
Here is a serious offence and, for some reason, these serious offences do not seem to attract demerit points. I am interested to know why, because we certainly have plenty of demerit points for other things, like speeding and anything to do with an offence which has a fair amount of risk to either the driver or other people on the road. Here is another example of an area where drivers and other road users are at risk and, yet, we do not include demerit points in the punishment of those offences.
Besides all that, Madam Speaker, I support the legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank members opposite for their support of this legislation. It is part of a raft of changes the government has been introducing to improve road safety across the Territory. It was a recommendation contained within the Road Safety Task Force report, and the passage of this legislation today will meet that commitment of government to introduce it.
It goes without saying, to an extent, that we have not had a drug testing regime for drivers on Territory roads. Sitting where I have been and understanding the work of the task force and the implementation team within government and the agencies involved in this, I have come to appreciate just how complex and difficult it has been to identify and provide a testing regime that will be robust. The understanding that I have come to is that it would be a better regime to introduce, as it is completely new, in the context of erratic driver behaviour. The police have been chasing the need to test at the scene of the accident for a long time. I take on board what the member for Nelson said; that it is not preventative but, in a sense, it becomes preventative because they are brought to account for the contributing factor to the accident. The offences will, for the first time, be applying that have not applied in the past, so it is pretty critical.
In talking to the people who are involved in, if you like, the on-the-ground implementation of the scheme, the health professionals and the police, who are at the forefront of doing the work on the ground, believe that the scheme, as presented and provided for in the legislation, will be effective. They certainly are looking forward to being able to drug test erratic drivers for the first time in the history of the Territory. They are certainly very much looking forward to being able to drug test people at the scene of the accident.
This is a quantum leap forward, Madam Speaker. We have not had a regime of this nature in the Territory before. There is a saying ‘you have to learn to walk before you can run’. We are not considering random testing for right across the spectrum as the CLP and the member for Nelson have asked for in this debate today, because we are walking through a brand new whole testing regime and system.
There is an exception to that. The exception was, I guess, really magnified in the contribution by the member for Katherine. Trucks are on the road 24/7, and they are a very large beast of a moving vehicle and can certainly create incredible carnage on our roads. I have had a very close working relationship with the Australian Trucking Association. Peter Goad has spoken to me on a number of occasions about the integrity of safety within the freight industry, and particularly the trucking industry, right across the nation. We, in a far greater sense than many jurisdictions, rely on the trucks for delivering produce to our markets. The trucking association approached me, as minister, when they became aware that I was working up legislation for drug testing of drivers. They said: ‘We have a zero tolerance policy in the trucking industry. Good employers enforce that and do testing of drivers. It would help us as an industry if you could include those heavy vehicles in a random drug testing capacity’.
I sought advice on that, and the advice that came back was that that would be a good way to progress and move forward, and would be something that the police would be capable of doing. Therefore, we have inserted random only for those heavy vehicles at the request of the trucking industry to recognise that trucks are quite a different category of movement on our roads. They are moving at night, during the day, and on long hauls. Sadly, in the past there has been a bit of a drug culture amongst drivers or truckies. I am pretty confident that that culture is actually being drummed out of the industry by the employers. The industry has taken a very strong stance in that regard. I have had the pleasure of working with the trucking industry for a couple of years. I am impressed by the efforts of those freight owners and family trucking owners who are going to ensure that they are as safe as possible in their industry. Trucks, by their sheer size, are incredibly dangerous users of our road networks, but they are important and critical users of that network.
Whilst I welcome the support, I will have to agree to disagree on the nature of introducing this brand new regime in a random manner across the Territory. I am very interested to see how it beds down. I am very interested to see results of its use. We have a road safety coordination group across government which provides for an opportunity for our health professionals, transport professionals, police professionals and others to come together and understand how the task force recommendations that we have been implementing are actually working on the ground and to evaluate that. I believe that that would be important; to assess and see how this brand new system and regime of drug testing of drivers in the Territory comes in and how it operates and the effects of that. I believe this will be a weapon in the armoury to save lives of Territorians.
I am confident that the message going out there - and like any new regime you have to raise public awareness of it - will be a very strong message to drivers: you can no longer put other peoples’ lives at risk in the Territory by taking drugs and driving, that there is a penalty and offence regime in place. We have a testing regime that will be in place. I say to people that, if they think they can take drugs and not drive erratically, they are kidding themselves. If you look at the schedule of drugs that are being applied and tested in this regime, there will be erratic driving behaviour from people driving after taking those drugs. We are being quite targeted; we understand the nature of the drugs we put on the testing regime and the consequences to the behaviour of drivers who take those drugs. I am pretty confident, as Transport minister, that tackling the point of erratic driving behaviour and of accidents will actually start to capture those recidivous drug takers who want to put other peoples’ lives at risk.
Yet, it will not capture people who are driving appropriately, who get pulled up at a random alcohol station, the RBTs, who happen to be on a range of different prescription pills because of a particular illness they have. This system is not designed to capture those people and it will not capture those people.
I have concerns, as minister, that if we introduced a random system, straight off the bat today, as called for by the members opposite, we would be capturing innocent people in our community; we would be capturing people who have suffered significant illness and, quite appropriately, are on certain prescription drugs in battling their illness. They would be pulled up randomly. I do not think that that is appropriate. That is not the sort of legislation that I would be looking for. There are some aspects of the random call that would need to be very seriously thought through, because you could actually start to capture the wrong people.
I am pretty confident of the amount of work that police, and Health particularly, have gone to in concert with the Transport division to really look at how a regime can be effective and implemented to save lives, and pick up those dangerous recidivists who think that they can take illicit and illegal drugs and get out on our roads and drive. Those are the sort of people this legislation is designed to tackle - those erratic drivers who are off their heads on illegal drugs who think they can go out there and put other people’s lives at risk. I am not, at this stage, prepared to pass the net wider than that, as is being called for by the opposition and the member for Nelson. I believe we have come up with a very fair and sensible approach to the issue of drug-driving.
I urge the members opposite to continue to seek updates and briefings from me on how the system is being operated in the Territory, in about six months or a year. I will be getting information through and I am happy to provide advice to the members opposite. However, I believe the legislation is robust and, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to introduce it in a random nature.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. As we have an amendment, I propose we move into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move that proposed section 29AAM(1) is amended by omitting the words:
and substituting:
Section 29AAM provides the power to suspend a licence for 24 hours. This amendment corrects the drafting error that had the unintended consequence of extending a specific power for police dealing with a person obviously impaired by drugs to an extent to the advantage of the public, following a positive blood test for drugs. The consequence was that this power, intended only for drugs, could also be applied for blood tests for alcohol. The amendment restricts the power to suspend a licence for 24 hours to apply only in circumstances where police reasonably believe that the person’s blood may contain a prohibited drug or substance to such an extent that they should not drive. It does not apply in the case of alcohol. Police will continue to use long-established protocols when dealing with blood tests for alcohol.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 29 November 2007.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, as probably members opposite would predict, this will be a usual attack on the fact that government’s income sources continue to grow without restraint, and that this government is now the beneficiary of $1.2bn extra this year than it had when the last CLP was in office in 2000-01. So that members are aware, the last CLP government had a budget of $2.2bn, and the projection in this mid-year report is $3.5bn. That is an increase of $1.2bn.
Members opposite, with a shallow glance, would make the assumption that they have done a wonderful job in getting all this extra money. Some of it they have through stamp duty receipts from the booming housing industry. They have harvested richly from the increased value of the transactions garnered by way of stamp duty. Further to that it is the GST, which is largely derived from the wealth of the nation, which is channelled, fortunately, into the Territory to deliver services necessary in a very difficult jurisdiction.
We need to talk about another aspect. Whilst we acknowledge the government’s expenditure across a range of areas, the government has increased spending substantially on health, education has received a substantial boost, policing also has received an extraordinary amount of money, and the waterfront is costing much more than the originally anticipated $100m. This is the privilege - the enviable position - of a government with huge amounts of cash. There could be a different scenario; there could be a different time. If you are a student of history, you will see it was not always so. However, at this particular point in time there is that growth, that strength which is resulting in cash flowing into the Territory economy, providing that capacity to spend. It may not always be the case.
As a government, you get to decide what you want to spend money on - that is your prerogative. You can spend it on programs or you can use it to retire debts such as superannuation debts. Superannuation debt is subject to variables, some of which the government can control to some degree such as wages growth, and others the government has less control over such as longer than expected survival rates. Good thing! What is clear recently, however, is that government has been saddled with a much greater debt than their 2002-03 forecast predicted. I note that the government has put money against this debt and the super fund 1% of what it needs to deal with superannuation debt. What all this proves is that government has the capacity to spend money, and everyone would easily make that assumption.
What is of concern and what I want to talk about is the method that government is choosing to spend that money, and the decision-making process that the government employs to spend that money.
Recently, I had the good fortune of reading a Cabinet submission. Good heavens! I know I am not supposed to see Cabinet submissions but, because there are so many of them flying around, every so often we on this side of the House get a chance to have a peek. Without reflecting on the nature of the submission, because that would probably result in some manhunt - or woman-hunt, so that covers it up there, it narrows it down, widens it out. That will only serve, of course, to get this public servant into trouble. However, it is more important to reflect on what flows from the observations gained by looking at a Cabinet submission.
Though it may suit the government’s agenda to try to paint the four members over here in the corner as the last bastion of some evil empire that once existed in the Northern Territory, and that I am a part of a former government - I was not, I was sitting on the backbench over there observing in the last days of the CLP. Nonetheless, I had enough advice to understand how the Cabinet process worked in the managing of requests that are made through the Cabinet process – and that is the point that I would like to make here.
The matter of consideration is that the submission was a matter of a policy that should have been made known to government, or at least the CEO of that department which had carriage of that issue. Each year, the department CEOs, I understand, are supposed to go to their ministers by their own motion to formulate the plan for the year. This plan will contain what the department or minister wants to achieve in the next 12 months and, then, the minister is supposed to go into the Budget Cabinet and fight for funding to have those goals achieved. It is called forward planning, which will require a level of preparation and agreement on strategic plans and a submission based on a commitment to a known plan. That is understandable. That is how I understand the process is to work. The Territory budget is formulated on this process. That is called strategic planning, when you have Budget Cabinet when, I am sure, that is when all these matters are resolved.
I am going to the point that, what we see is the Treasurer comes into this place, asks the House to pass a law to get the Central Holding Authority to release over $3bn so that government services may be provided, based on the plans that have been presented and ticked off through the Budget Cabinet process.
This place, the parliament, then goes through that process of testing each minister about what they want the money for and what they have done with the money in the past. It makes sense. That is called the estimates process. Then, the House re-forms and, under normal circumstances, the law is passed and then the money is released, on behalf of the good people of the Northern Territory. That is the job that we have here.
However, I notice that this mid-year report betrayed the fact that the process is a little skewed, something that is evidenced by the Cabinet submission that I referred to earlier – the fact that, again, the Treasurer’s Advance has been emptied around Christmas time, and what has happened in this report. I draw members’ attention to page 6 of the report. I note that, in the general government sector cash flow statement on page 28, unbudgeted income growth has been $167m. I accept not all of that is discretionary funding. On page 6, however, there is an explanation of the increased and unbudgeted income growth. Part of the growth is SPPs worth $62.2m. There is nothing that the government can do about that because that money is off budget and tied to projects specific to the funding source; namely, the federal government. However, I do note talk from the new Labor government that they are going to review SPPs and that there will be a new arrangement so that these SPPs can be brought - well, in my view, I think they should be brought back - into closer marrying of the projects of government. There is a new approach that will be taken by the Rudd government, I understand, and I am looking forward to seeing what that will mean. However, I move on.
We are not really talking about SPPs in this case. Page 6 also points out that Territory taxation has risen by $19.9m, the GST income has risen by $51m, and royalties have increased by $27.4m. It would be fair to say that if government’s planning was tracking well – this is the point - then the projected budgetary deficit of $40.109m in the original budget papers would be wiped out. However, it is not. The mid-year review said that the projected deficit for this year is $40.057m, almost exactly what was projected in the budget. I am wondering if you are following this. There has been an extraordinary increase in unexpected income over and above that which was expected, but the deficit remains the same. How is that? Where does the leakage occur? We are going back to the point of planning.
You know all about it. Yes, roll your eyes: ‘This bloke does not know what he is talking about. I do. Listen to me. I am the best Treasurer ever’. We will see. I am looking forward to your response, Treasurer.
What this means is that all the extra discretionary money has been spent or will be spent, the shortfall - the difference between the two - has gone. It has been spent. I go back to the point of the Cabinet submission that floated by. Basically, it goes on to explain generally where the extra money has gone, but it does not go into detail. Of the $27.4m earmarked for expenditure in the area of Closing the Gap response, it merely uses the term ‘including’.
When we go through the budget process, the Treasurer asks us for $40m extra for ‘just-in-case money’. This is listed on page 63 of Budget Paper No 3 as Treasurer’s Advance. This is the piggy bank for the unexpected. It is not unlike a household budget that keeps a little to the side for an unexpected spending such as a car broken down or, in our case, a washing machine. The government equivalent of a car breaking down is a flood or a cyclone and damage that they can cause. You need some reserves, a capacity to draw when you have the unexpected and the unplanned.
In a perfect world, when this budgetary cycle is over that money should be there because departments and ministers have lived within their budgets. They have set their plans and they are established; they live within those budgets and the unexpected can be responded to by the reserves, the Central Holding Authority - the extra. However, that money - the Treasurer’s Advance - was spent around Christmas time as the Treasurer notified this House that he was using the advance. The excuse on page 6 for the overspend also hints of the central problem. It says that Closing the Gap was an off-budget spend. The Treasurer simply cannot be suggesting that the government did not know that they were going to have commitments in this area when they were putting the budget together. Is that the case? You did not know that you were going to have to spend that amount of money?
Sadly, there are other explanations that make sense. This includes two important things: first, that Closing the Gap was a response to a political situation that had formed and there was initially no intention to spend that money; and second, that this government is very prepared to make expensive policy decisions on the run, going to the core of the planning - forward planning, rigour and discipline. Also from the Cabinet submissions that I have seen, items that should have been budgeted for because either the CEO or the minister knew that there was a policy item in the pipeline were not budgeted for. This demonstrates a capacity for ministers to be less than conscientious in their planning for the year ahead knowing that Cabinet will be forgiving: ‘There is plenty of money around, mount the right argument and we can get some’.
It is taking the rigour from the planning process and inserting it all the way along the line. You can ask for money because there is more money there. What I am concerned about is the internal rigour of commitment. To a set plan is fine in times of plenty but not so in times where there is less, when there is a downturn, when there is a change. You cannot charter your course according to here and now, thinking that this is going to be the only scenario that you will face. There have been tougher times where things have not been so strong and the cash has not flowed in such abundance. The point here is the rigor within the system.
In the policy items before the House at the moment, there is no line item in the budget for youth camps. The words ‘youth camp’ do not appear anywhere in Budget Paper No 3. In fact, the only promise that hints at youth camps are the youth development units referred to in the budget speech. If the youth camps are being funded by that money, then somebody else is going to miss out; that is the nature of planning. However, the likely source of the money is some of the new money that has come to us in the form of extra GST and own source revenue. Is this the way we will be chartering our course? That is what we need to know. That is what opposition can see as our obligation to draw attention to these matters.
Currently before this House, we have just discussed it, is the drug-driving bill. I would expect, and it would not be unreasonable to assume, that the Commissioner for Police is going to seek extra money to make that happen. This has not been mentioned in the budget process. Surely, the Treasurer knew this was going to be a part of the planning for the year. Or is it the case that government woke up one morning and said: ‘Oh, I have a good idea, let us go and do it’. I ask the minister how much the drug-driving policy is going to cost? I estimate it will be in the order of between $0.75m to $1m to establish and, annually, another $0.25m or $0.50m for current - not sure. We need that sort of information to see what sort of systems we really are running and whether we are prepared for difficult times.
The point is that either the minister or the commissioner, in all likelihood, did not mention this in the Budget Cabinet process. If not, why not? It is difficult to imagine the minister or the minister’s CEO was unaware that this policy was in the pipeline. The problem for government is that this has become the standard way to do business. There are Cabinet submissions after Cabinet submissions going to the government with costs attached to them that did not go through the proper budgetary processes, and they are worth at least $27.4m this year alone. It does not sound like much. In the real world, that sort of money will build you a school, perhaps like the one that was promised in Rosebery. That would be a very good example and a good use of that money if it had not been used for unplanned expenditure with Cabinet submissions upon Cabinet submissions and the contests that go on within Cabinet to get their little projects funded and supported outside the rigours of the Budget Cabinet.
The Financial Management Act allows the Treasurer to overspend the appropriation by 5% before the Treasurer has to come back into this place and ask for some more cash. Allowing for the effect of SPP, that means that the government can track to a position of being about $150m off course this year before they have to come back in here. Considering that the government, in the Treasurer’s Advance, already has $40m to play with, it means that the government can overdo it, in my estimation, by about $200m before there are any red flags here for us to look at.
Ms Lawrie: Maybe that is what you lot did.
Mr MILLS: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Maybe that is what you lot did. Maybe that is why you got yourself into trouble.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: That is a lot of money and it is that discretion that sees the government taking a cavalier approach to the management of the Territory’s budget. Each time they are bailed out by money that drops out from the ether and that they did not budget for or did not expect to get. It is the equivalent of a person spending money on a credit card hoping that they will get a raise each year. Amazingly in this case, this Labor government has been able to get a raise each year. Imagine if they had managed to achieve what they set out to achieve and scuttled the GST before they won government.
Listening to the Chief Minister wax lyrical about proving financial management in an environment of spending that is so unrestrained and unplanned, it is not like someone who is disloyal, waxing about loyalty. However, it does raise questions about the integrity of the budget process and it leaves me wondering what this lot opposite would do if they actually had to manage a budget because the tide went out on the sea of gold if circumstances changed. That is the consideration sitting beneath these comments. You may pick small points on this and you may ride over the top or ignore it, but these are concerns. It is easy to manage in times of plenty, but these are the times to prepare for the other cycle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I finish with a simple question. The government was recently ordered to pay back – I think it was $50m - in an unlawfully collected stamp duty from a single taxpayer. What is the status of that matter? Does it appear anywhere in our budget, or was that money held off account until the matter was settled? I need clarification on that.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution in relation to the mid-year report is that we are a government that just spends its way through the good times, and woe betide the Territory if we are ever a government in the bad times. Well, you have a very short memory. When this government came into power in 2001 we were absolutely in the depths of the bad times.
I take my hat off to the former Treasurer because, to climb out of those bad times from 2001 to 2003-04 was incredibly hard, and only occurred because of the strength of the fiscal management applied by the Treasurer and the entire Cabinet team. We applied funding to ensure that we were stimulating growth into projects that, at the time, the opposition complained about and wanted to knock. We knew that to climb out of the bad times we had to stimulate growth. Our construction sector was on its knees; subbies were leaving town; families were being split up because someone had to find work because there was no work to be found in the Territory.
Now we have significant growth in our economy and employment. We are bucking national trends and, yes, we have a strength underpinning our economy that has come through the resources boom. However, the growth first appeared in our construction sector, and that was because government put cash into record after record infrastructure spends. We identified where the need was to stimulate the economy and we went after it. At the same time, we paid significant attention to encouraging growth in our employment sector industries and, in tourism, we went out aggressively with tourism marketing campaigns to bring the people back to town because we had been hit hard with a collapse in tourism in the Territory. Our second largest industry was on its knees when we came to government in 2001.
We went out and sold to the mining sector - to the prospective players out there - the opportunities of the resources in the Territory, after the previous government had refused to sign off on exploration licences because they were locked into an ideological war about native title. We pursued ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw attention to this. As I understand it, this is to be called a debate. It seems that the response does not match at all the comments that have been raised. I would not call it a debate; it is just two parallel discussions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Blain. Treasurer, please resume.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, and to refresh the short-term memory loss that seems to be here, as I said at the outset, the entire thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the mid-year report was about ‘We can manage in good times, we can manage in times of riches, but woe behold us if we are in the bad times’. I am talking specifically about the bad times in 2001 to 2003-04, and how strong targeted fiscal management from the Labor government helped us climb out of it. Own source revenue is up, and the Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution, recognised that. Well, you do not get an improvement in own source revenue if you have not been stimulating your economy.
Yes, we have benefited from GST. What really struck me in the contribution was that the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘GST derived from the wealth of the nation channelled into the Territory’. Actually, that is our fair share. We have taxpayers in the Territory, we have a recognised need in the Territory, and we get our share of the GST. I will go to Canberra and I will fight for an increased share of the GST, because that is the right of the Territory. I am not going to sit back and say: ‘Sorry, New South Wales and Victoria, you can take more because I think you deserve more’. I would be a fool of a Treasurer if I had that line.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to step away from saying we are getting the nation’s wealth. We are punching above our weight in exports. The contribution we are making in exports, off the back of our mineral wealth, off the back of our gas exports, is going into the nation’s coffers. I, for one, am happy to go down there and get our share of the GST that is dollars our nation is earning off the back of the wealth being drawn out of the Territory in our exports.
The flight of fancy that the Leader of the Opposition would have us entertain regarding the budget process and how Cabinet submissions occur, just beggars belief. If we were to follow the process that he thinks we ought to be following, we would be in all sorts of strife. It made me start to come to terms and realise how the previous CLP ministers must have got themselves into strife if that was the extent of their planning for the budget.
Underpinning the thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution was his notion that time stops from May to May, that things do not change, that there are no key initiatives, key priorities, or key opportunities for government to grasp through Cabinet decision-making processes; that we can sit back and say: ‘Well, we had the Little Children are Sacred Report, but let us not do anything about that until the following budget. Let us just say, no, we are not going to attend to additional policing, additional housing, or additional education in the bush, and we are not going to put any more child protection workers out there because - oh look at that - it is not May’. It is nonsense, Leader of the Opposition. Your premise that we should be frozen in time from May to May and not have initiatives between budgets is an absolute nonsense.
The time of planning predates budget periods. The planning that goes into - and I know from when I was the Minister for Family and Community Services, regarding the Little Children are Sacred report initiatives were commitments in Closing the Gap. We were planning those 18 months in advance of Closing the Gap being delivered, not in the months after the May budget - a long time before the May budget we were planning them specifically to address the Little Children are Sacred report. That was not to say we were not getting other initiatives out the door – we were. However, we absolutely knew that we had to reframe and reshape an entire child protection system, and we were not going to do that ahead of recommendations of an independent inquiry. It would have been nonsense to do that.
I have seen the way whole-of-government pulled together across all agencies on Closing the Gap. I saw the way Treasury was able to work with each of the individual agencies in understanding the complex array of options that we had before us. I am proud that the mid-year report represents that significant investment in Closing the Gap. I am proud that this Territory government is using the opportunity of a growing economy to deliver services for Territorians because, fundamentally, that is what they expect of government. They say: ‘You take our taxes, you regulate, and we want, in return, better education for our children, better health systems for the aged, for the young, and for families right across the Territory - right across the Territory’. They want to live in a society where they know there are police out there on the beat, right across the Territory.
Yes, government’s role is to provide services and more opportunities to provide services are brought about through strong and sound financial management, which is exactly the path that this government has been on since 2001, which is exactly the task that I, as Treasurer, will be focused on because we do not sit there and plan from year to year. We do not sit there and think, ‘Well, we are okay this year, so let us go and spend and do not worry about next year’. We plan in five- and 10-year periods. We do forward projections. We understand our revenues, we understand our expenditure, and we do not risk during the good times entering into bad times. That is poor financial management, and we will not do that.
I am convinced that the team of the Under Treasurer and her Treasury officials are very capable of providing the advice government needs to stay on track. I get that advice regularly. I test every single idea that comes forward. Ideas are great. Ideas are exactly what fuels our great Territory. I am not going to say to business, as Infrastructure minister: ‘Do not come in my door with your ideas because it is not budget time’. I am not going to say to the school system: ‘It does not matter if you have had a need there, do not come knocking on my door until it is budget time’. I am not going to say Catholic Education Office: ‘It is not budget time, so do not come and have a chat to me about where you want to build additional schools’. Ideas develop the Territory.
What I will say is we will absolutely test every single idea down to the greatest detail. We will test it across the agencies. We will test it across industry. Financially we will run our experts right across it, and it will only get up and only be resourced if it meets all of those tests.
There is a strong fiscal regime that has been in place since the former Treasurer took the helm, and I wish to follow in his legacy. He did a great job of staying focused on delivering services to Territorians right across the Territory, providing an environment of growth for business and industry - an environment that encourages the diversity of industry, which is a sound financial basis in which to proceed forward. We are not going to put all of our eggs into the minerals boom basket. The Leader of the Opposition, in the previous debate, referred to all of the eggs in the China basket. That was a reference to the nation. That was not a reference to the Territory alone.
We are entering into what is described as a refreshing phase. It is a very exciting phase in the financial outlook of the Territory, but that brings with it a compelling requirement to keep fiscal management tight - and we will. We will not squander the opportunity of today. What we will do is use the opportunity of today to create far greater opportunities for tomorrow for business, for community and for Territorians right across the Territory.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that fishing is the lure of the Territory. Not only does it contribute to our unique lifestyle, but it is also a significant driver of our economy - and that includes both recreational and commercial sectors. That is why a fundamental responsibility of government is to ensure the sustainability of our aquatic resources so that recreational fishing opportunities will be enjoyed by Territorians into the future, and that the jobs and economic development flowing from our recreational and commercial fishing industries continue to flourish.
My department’s Fisheries Group is charged with the responsibility of managing our fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner. The department provides high-quality research and management advice on which we can base decisions that ensure the ongoing sustainable management of our fisheries.
Working closely with key stakeholder groups, fisheries management measures are developed for the aim of ensuring not only the sustainability of our fish stocks but also the maintenance of high-quality recreational fishing experiences. We all recognise that recreational fishing is a key part of our unique Territory lifestyle. With such pristine waters holding abundant fish stocks and aquatic life, we have a recreational fishing lifestyle that is the envy of the rest of Australia. With that comes the responsibility of properly managing these resources, now and into the future, for all Territorians.
Of course, the key iconic recreational species of the Territory is the mighty barramundi. Locals and tourists alike will invest vast amounts of time and effort for this prize catch. It remains a priority of government to protect this valuable species. We will continue to use management tools such as commercial licence numbers, gear restrictions, minimum size requirements, and seasonal closures to guarantee stock sustainability.
Key amongst our efforts to enhance the recreational fishing experience has been the closure of the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers in 2002 and 2004, respectively, to commercial barramundi fishing. The closure to commercial netters has allowed the reallocation of the resource in these areas to benefit recreational anglers. These closures also include the buy-back of two commercial barramundi fishing licences, to ensure that fishing pressure was simply not redistributed and concentrated in other parts of the fishery.
Given the importance of barramundi to the Territory, we are developing a five-year plan, 10-year vision for the management of the fishery, and that includes the capacity for further licence buy-back initiatives, in line with our 2005 election commitments.
It should be noted that changes to the barramundi fishery cannot be finalised until the Blue Mud Bay decision has been dealt with. As I indicated at the AFANT AGM on Sunday, this government’s position on the Blue Mud Bay case is clear. We do not agree with the Blue Mud Bay decision handed down by the Federal Court and that is why we are appealing it to the High Court. The Territory government remains opposed to recreational fishing permits and licences. In the meantime, temporary arrangements have been put in place for the grant of permits and licences at no cost to commercial and recreational fishers. When the decision is brought down, we will be in a position to move forward on our plans for the barramundi fishery. In the meantime, we will continue to work with all stakeholder groups to ensure the sustainable management of the fishery.
In addition to managing our wild barramundi fishery resources, this government has provided additional recreational barramundi fishing opportunities through suitable stocked impoundments. Over 300 000 fingerlings have been stocked in Manton Dam and Lake Todd. These stock impoundments provide future alternative options for recreational fishermen in the Territory. In particular, Manton Dam is already reaping the benefits of past stockings, with regular reports of barramundi over the 1 m mark being caught. Negotiations are continuing with the Jawoyn people, the traditional owners of Lake Todd, to work towards the opening up of the lake as another alternative for recreational fishers.
Barrier nets have also been installed to contain barramundi in stock impoundments, thereby maximising the opportunity for anglers to land a trophy fish. More than $1m has been committed to the buy-back of commercial licences to provide greater opportunities for anglers as well as helping to sustain the commercial catch. Recreational fishers will benefit from our recent success negotiating the buy-back of nine inshore coastal net licences as part of the scheme. The significant buy-back of licences removes commercial fishing effort from the potential harvest of key recreational species, including blue salmon and queenfish.
Importantly, the removal of these licences also reduces the impact on barramundi food sources, such as mullet and garfish, thereby providing added benefit overall to the barramundi life cycle, and that of all recreational species. With the removal of these licences, we have met a significant election commitment and closed Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to all forms of inshore commercial coastal net fishing. This is a real winner for recreational anglers, particularly as Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay are the most popular fishing destinations in the Territory. Surveys of anglers have revealed that almost half of all the fishing effort throughout the Territory is undertaken in Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay and, of some interest, three-quarters of anglers were local residents.
To further add to the Territory recreational fishing experience, I have made it a priority to expand the artificial reef network in and around Darwin Harbour. Recently, a large illegal foreign fishing vessel, the Medkehanun III, was scuttled expanding the Song Saigon artificial reef site in Darwin Harbour. I am pleased to say that AFANT sourced $10 000 which contributed towards the preparation of this vessel. I thank the Darwin Harbourmaster and his staff for his valuable assistance with the towing and scuttling of the Medkehanun III. The scuttling of an illegal foreign fishing vessel also sends a clear message to those contemplating similar illegal fishing activities in our waters; that with their actions comes severe consequences.
In addition, three decommissioned vessels were added to two of the three artificial reef sites near Lee Point. These more recent additions, along with the previous sinking of the Kay Lee in 2006 greatly enhanced the Lee Point reef complex. Now, anglers can enjoy a larger selection of artificial reef structures within easy reach for small boats. The Lee Point artificial reef complex is also within easy reach of the Nightcliff boat ramp, and regularly rewards anglers with great catches of jewfish, snapper and mackerel, amongst other species.
In recreational fishing infrastructure, this government has continued to pave the way for new boat ramps and recreational fishing access to remote areas. Government currently maintains 26 boat ramps across the Territory as well as platforms, jetties, and artificial reefs which provide access to all boat users. Infrastructure projects to date undertaken by this government include upgrades to the Mule Creek, Rocky Creek, Dinah Beach, Buffalo Creek, Nightcliff and Mandorah boat ramps.
Tenders have been called for the construction of a $2.8m state-of-the-art boat ramp to be built at Hudson Creek near East Arm in Darwin Harbour. The ramp will be accessible to Darwin, Palmerston and rural residents and will provide improved access to Darwin Harbour. When completed, anglers should be able to launch and retrieve their boats in as little as 1.5 m of water instead of the 3 m which is suggested for the launching at the nearby ramp at East Arm. Tenders have also been called for the reconstructed boat ramp on the coast near Channel Point. Facilities will include a fenced access easement, a camping ground and a formed concrete ramp. Tenders close at the end of February with the construction anticipated during this Dry Season. A floating jetty is also to be installed at Dinah Beach to allow anglers to secure their boats while moving their trailers. It is timely to install a floating jetty, given the enormous popularity of the ramp and usage following the upgrade taken by this government.
A new Recreational Fishing Access Working Group has been established which includes senior executive officers of relevant agencies with a direct responsibility for identifying and coordinating new fishing access and infrastructure projects. AFANT has also been afforded membership to provide advice on anglers’ needs when it comes to recreational fishing access and infrastructure. To further support the needs of recreational fishermen in the Territory, the Fisheries Group has also established a dedicated Recreational Fishing Unit comprising three full-time recreational fishing officers. This group deals with all matters related to recreational fishing, including logistical support for fishing tournaments, education, junior fishing workshops, impoundment stocking and coordination of our highly successful Riverwatch program.
Junior recreational fishing workshops are held in Nhulunbuy and Katherine to promote recreational fishing and provide education on the importance of handling fish correctly and respecting our natural environment.
The Territory’s lifestyle not only incorporates great leisure activities such as recreational fishing, but also includes the availability of local premium Northern Territory seafood. In this respect, our commercial fisheries and aquaculture industries play a very important role in maintaining our Territory lifestyle. A precautionary approach in managing our natural resources, combined with the willingness of our commercial fisheries to work together for the long term, has enabled our own local industry to stand against the trends in other states.
Our commercial fisheries remain viable for the benefit of all Territorians and visitors alike. As you would be aware, in the Territory you can still go down to your local fish and chip shop and purchase fresh, premium-quality locally-caught fish or choose a tropical snapper or barra from the menu at one of our many restaurants. With this in mind, it is worth considering the significant contribution both the recreational and commercial fishing industries, as well as aquaculture, make to our thriving economy in jobs and maintaining the Territory lifestyle we all enjoy.
Recreational fishing makes a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory’s economy, with $34.7m of the Territory’s annual tourist income derived from recreational fishing. In addition, the Northern Territory has the greatest number per capita of recreational fishers, and the highest level of boat ownership in Australia.
At the same time, it is also important to recognise the contribution made to our economy through commercial fishing. Some 1450 people are employed in the commercial seafood industry, with a gross value of production at the first point of sale at around $30m. Along with the indirect benefits through the major support and maintenance industry sectors, the value of the seafood industry to the Northern Territory economy is significant. We also recognise the important contribution made by the respective stakeholder organisations.
This government continues to support recreational fishing through ongoing funding to the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, or AFANT. This year, we will provide approximately $200 000 to enable the association to continue to employ its executive officer and its office assistant to administer the small grants program for fishing clubs.
While on the subject of support, the government has provided $40 000 to the Northern Territory Guided Fishing Industry Association for the past three years to enable the employment of its executive officer and payment of its business costs. This is an important industry to the Territory, catering for the increased tourist market. In 2006, over 20 000 visitors came to the Territory and booked a fishing charter or guided fishing tour. Visiting anglers can enjoy a day on the water, or an extended fishing trip with an expert fishing guide aiming to catch prized barramundi or any other of our exciting game fish species. Of some interest, visiting or out-of-state anglers contribute around 30% of total expenditure on recreational fishing in the Territory compared to 8% nationally. We are also a nett importer of fishing tourists, with more than 100 000 visitors saying that they go fishing during their stay.
The Northern Territory Seafood Council is also supported in representing its members through an annual grant of $180 000 from government. The Seafood Council has demonstrated a willingness to work with government and other key stakeholders in ensuring the sustainability of our fisheries resources. To this end, my Fisheries Group is charged with the responsibility of managing our fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner. They provide high-quality research and management advice upon which we can base decisions that ensure the ongoing sustainable management of our fisheries, including recreational fishing.
During our time in government, we have progressed greatly in addressing sustainability concerns and adopting an ecologically sustainable development approach to the management of our valuable aquatic resources. This can be clearly demonstrated through the national recognition and accreditation of all of our export fisheries under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Northern Territory has been awarded the greatest proportion of the highest level accreditation for the way in which we manage our fisheries. These accreditations are essentially a green tick of approval, and allow these fisheries to export seafood products, providing certainty and security to commercial fishers, processors, exporters and the general community.
Our wild capture fisheries are regularly reviewed, with participation from all stakeholder groups to ensure we apply appropriate, adaptive fisheries management. There are many examples of where we have implemented progressive fisheries management measures to meet export accreditation needs and ensure the biological, economic and social sustainability of each fishery. During our term, the barramundi, Spanish mackerel, mud crab, offshore net and line, and aquarium fisheries in particular, have undergone significant progressive management changes. I will not go into the details today, but the accreditations I have outlined make it clear that we have made the right decisions at the right time to ensure a prosperous sustainable future of our fisheries.
At this point, I should also raise the measures undertaken by this government with respect to working with our federal government counterparts to reduce the impact of illegal foreign fishing. There is no question that successful lobbying from this government has led to increased surveillance in our northern borders by the lead agency, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. We should not be complacent about the effects of illegal foreign fishing on our local fish stocks. Available estimates suggest that, in the past, the illegal harvest of shark has been up to 12 times higher than the legitimate catch by Northern Territory licensed fishers. Initiatives to ensure the sustainability of our stocks were being eroded by illegal and unregulated foreign fishing catchers. Illegal foreign fishing not only threatens our productive recreation and commercial fisheries but also our native flora and fauna through the introduction of aquatic pests and potential spread of disease. Now, with increased surveillance, the number of illegal incursions has dramatically declined. We will continue to work closely with our federal counterparts to ensure the surveillance continues and our rich aquatic resources are protected.
To provide recreational fishing information and a mechanism through which fishers can report issues of concern, government continues to support nine Riverwatch centres at the Roper, Daly, Mary, McArthur, Victoria and the South and East Alligator Rivers. These centres also provide literature on a range of aquatic environmental issues including boating safety, fish kills, noxious weed infestations, and similar issues to local and visiting anglers alike.
As announced at the AFANT AGM, this government is now funding a new recreation survey which will be undertaken over the financial years of 2008-09 and 2009-10. The survey will ensure that we have the latest information needed to continue to effectively manage recreational fishing and our broader aquatic resources. While the process is lengthy, the information obtained will be invaluable to the management of our fisheries in the future. As I stated earlier, the information needed to make the right management decisions relies on continued monitoring and innovative research. Our highly regarded fisheries research team has continued in its tradition of innovation with respect to the sustainability of our fisheries and recreational fishing.
A large project looking at the survival and health of catch and release fishing for line-caught barramundi is continuing. Results today show that barramundi are very tough fish and, although they show signs of stress when caught, around 90% of the fish survive once released. Also, we have found that fish-friendly knotless landing nets cause less damage to the fish than older style nets, and promote survival. We are continuing our collaboration with interstate partners on a project that investigates how rainfall and river flow affect barramundi populations and growth. This will provide information that will help us maintain barramundi stocks in a changing climate.
Department staff are currently sampling fish in rivers across the Top End to improve our understanding of what freshwater fish are present and what their distribution is. This will provide information on how we can arrange and manage rivers to maintain our remarkable biodiversity.
Work is recommencing on refining a model that will help us manage barramundi stocks on a regional basis and to help target any buy-back of commercial licences. In 2005, the Fisheries Group hosted a national workshop on barramundi where fishery scientists and managers from Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory considered innovative ways for managing barramundi. Some of these innovations are now being considered in the future management of the Northern Territory barramundi fishery.
Moving from the barramundi fishery, our coastal researchers are in the process of finalising a report which describes the size, frequency, age, structure and spawning cycle of the Northern Territory black jewfish at a number of key aggregation sites. The report also documents the effects of barotrauma on black jewfish caught from different water depths and contains advice on how to best release those fish that have not suffered barotrauma. Barotrauma is caused by the rapid change in water pressure as fish are hauled to the surface. Colleagues at the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute are also finalising a report on the movement of the Northern Territory black jewfish at and between key aggregation sites.
Mud crab research has hosted the Northern Territory Mud Crab Stock Assessment in June 2007 in Darwin. The stock assessment undertaken examined the impact of the 10 mm increase in size limit for commercially harvested mud crabs. The stock assessment report is currently undergoing international scientific review and will be available in the coming months. Researchers continue to record the size, sex ratio and mating success of commercially harvested mud crabs through an ongoing monthly mud crab monitoring program.
The pristine condition of the Northern Territory’s aquatic resources underpins the livelihoods and lifestyles of Territorians and places added importance on the need for dealing with the incursions of exotic marine pests which could threaten our unique environment. The Aquatic Pest Management Unit, or the APMU, was established in response to the black-striped mussel incursion in Darwin marinas. This event highlighted the vulnerability of Territory waterways to invasion of exotic species.
A recent externally-funded project has made it possible to involve remote indigenous communities in surveillance for marine pests. This project has allowed training for sea rangers in marine pest issues and links into existing surveillance programs undertaken by the sea rangers. Every year, marine pests are intercepted through a vessel inspection program. Visiting vessels entering Darwin marinas are assessed to determine the risks they pose and may have their hull inspected and the seawater pipework treated to reduce the marine pest risk presented by these vessels. Every year, around 150 vessels are treated in this way.
The APMU is also a central point for the reporting of suspected aquatic pests and provides the capacity to respond to aquatic pest outbreaks. Every year, around 20 marine and freshwater pest reports are investigated by the unit. Fortunately, the majority of these reports turn out to be native species. However, on occasion these reports are of a species of concern. For example, in the last six months APMU has implemented additional surveillance activities on two occasions in response to detection of Asian green mussels on vessels in Darwin Harbour.
Eradication activities have also been undertaken in the last year to remove populations of feral freshwater fish from urban streams in the Darwin region. It is just another example of ways in which we protect our environment. In undertaking all these activities, the unit is mindful that our first line of defence against introduced species is the general public. Territorians are the eyes and ears of our waterways, and educating the public about aquatic pests is an important function of the APMU.
The unit also represents the Northern Territory in many national forums that address the prevention and management of introduced aquatic species. The Northern Territory government is a signatory to the intergovernmental agreement, National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. The APMU has been instrumental in leading the way in vector management of marine pests, with protocols under the national system modelled on those in place in the Northern Territory since 1999. The national system will provide nationally consistent measures for the prevention, emergency response and ongoing control of marine pests around Australia toward a greater level of protection to the aquatic resources of the NT. With the development of this national system complete, jurisdictions are now planning for the implementation of the various elements of such a system.
I am sure we are all aware of the importance placed by this government on indigenous engagement. Within the Fisheries Group, the Indigenous Liaison Unit, the ILU, currently manages projects with coverage of the Top End. These include Aboriginal consultative committees, the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger program and the Indigenous Economic Development programs, and trialling aquaculture ventures in conjunction with the indigenous coastal communities across the Territory. The ILU employs three permanent staff, an indigenous cadet, and an indigenous apprentice.
From within the department of Fisheries, annual budget core funding of $60 000 is allocated to each of the eight marine ranger programs. The Fisheries Group has fostered a strong relationship with each of these groups through training, funding, and the provision of technical support. Over 45 rangers are employed in the marine ranger program. In addition, Fisheries has employed a coordinator and an indigenous support officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups, including those not currently funded under the marine ranger program.
The Northern Territory government, working in partnership with the Aboriginal groups, has established Aboriginal consultative committees to assist with the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. These committees provide an opportunity for both government and indigenous stakeholders to work for the fisheries-related issues from the grassroots level. My department’s Fisheries Group will continue with meaningful consultative processes in place between Aboriginal stakeholders, Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit, representative groups, the Northern Territory Seafood Council, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory.
The ILU also assisted with the issuing of two development licences, one to harvest painted crayfish in the Nhulunbuy region, and the other to harvest jellyfish near the Wessel Islands. Aquaculture projects assisted include the Kulaluk mud crab trial and the trials at the Maningrida mud crab enclosure. Other projects in the concept stage include the Warruwi trepang aquaculture partnership with Tasmanian Seafoods. Support has also been provided to the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation in operating its commercial mud crab licence, its aquarium fish licence, and for a service level agreement with Customs valued at over $300 000 per annum to employ up to four sea rangers on a full-time basis.
The importance of the Territory’s aquatic resources cannot be overstated. Our aquatic resources are a critical feature for both our lifestyle and our economy. They also provide the potential for our economic development in many remote communities.
Whether it be the choice available to a family to spend a day in a tinny on the harbour, or the viability of so many other of our businesses, small and large, both recreational and commercial fishing play an integral role in our Territory. Therefore, the first and overriding responsibility of my Fisheries Group is to use all the resources it has at its disposal to guarantee the sustainability of our fish stocks into the future for all Territorians.
Madam Deputy Speaker, all the evidence suggests that the resource is currently being well managed, and that gives us the confidence to move forward with future initiatives to open up more opportunities for both recreational and commercial development in our Territory fisheries.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for an important statement on an area that is, as you well know, held dear by many Territorians. I attended the AGM of AFANT on Sunday. I have been to a number of those over the years and they are, clearly, a very passionate group.
One thing I note and must comment on is that you finished your statement by saying the highest priority is sustainability of the fish stocks. That was the dominant message that was coming through from the floor in discussion before and afterwards: that those who are keen and those who are members of AFANT have that as their highest priority also. I was particularly interested in discussions that I had with members of AFANT with regards to bag limits. I was surprised to find that they are very supportive of a reduction in those bag limits, which just strikes at the core of the minister’s final point that those who are dedicated and passionate about fishing have the same position as described by him. It was an important one and I was surprised by that position and understand it. It has deepened my respect for the amateur fishing community. That, given the outline of the programs and projects that are in place to reinforce sustainability, is to be commended.
The important element about which I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions, which you have responded to the call from AFANT as well, is the need to do an assessment to measure - a proper survey. These surveys, the ability to measure, are the most important component of any plan or desire to increase sustainability. With all the programs and projects in place, if we do not have that element within our structure or our plans, all of it will be well-intentioned, perhaps, but unable to be properly measured. Therefore, I am pleased that there has been now the concession and the commitment to a survey.
That is an important element that must be committed to in greater strengths in outlining when the next one will be. It should be an ongoing program. You cannot just do a one-off census. You have to be able to compare at set times, to be able to set in a regime so that there is that measuring capacity from now and into the future. We have lost data over a large chunk of time.
Before I came into this Chamber, I remember there was a comprehensive survey where people were pulled up on the road. As usual, after a long day’s fishing, I did not have much to report. I tried, but I did not catch many fish. It is important if we have an approach to this; that the amateur fishing community is going to be able to support it. If we have it in a way that is well planned and put out there, we are going to build a new culture that people will be able to respond to it and look forward to it and know that they are feeding in that most important data.
I commend the minister for making that announcement. However, I urge him to go to the next step to put it in place as a mechanism that projects right out into the future. Otherwise we will have breaks in our data collection. We then lose the opportunity to build that culture - which already exists within AFANT and the amateur fishing community - of responsibility and the need to respond to policy as it is implemented to see whether it is working or not. That way, you would be able to have people being involved in it and looking forward to it.
I know, when the last survey was on, there were some who thought it might be some sort of punitive thing, and you would get pinged for having too many fish or something like that. Therefore, perhaps there was corruption in the data collection, because some people were not sure about it and thought they might be in trouble. However, if you have it as a set regime and you communicate clearly to people, you will get clearer data, which will be most useful to ensuring that the programs that are in place will be effective. I am really pleased to hear that, but I ask for that next element to it. Of course, I am looking forward to data on the mud crabs too. All of those programs must have that measurability built into it.
The most important point the fishing and wider community hold is a concern about access. There was talk about boat ramps, and the serviceability of boat ramps and maintenance thereof. That is on one very important level and I will come back to that. However, the first headline issue is the threat of uncertainty to the world of fishing access, as we have experienced it up until now in the Territory.
I commend the NLC Chief Executive Officer, John Christopherson. I admire the way that he fronted the AFANT AGM. I was very impressed in the way he articulated his position. There was no ambiguity, and he showed the courage of his convictions and argued his case very well. I believe that is the approach that must be taken if we are going to progress these difficult matters. There is much more to be done, and that is the sort of language I would like to see from government. That is the challenge: that you have a clearly defined position with the courage to articulate it and argue it, even at the front and in the face of a hostile crowd. That is perhaps discussion for another day. Even the two positions represented in that room were diametrically and hostile positions, there was respect generated by that courageous presentation. I, as a member of AFANT, and others, take our hat off to John Christopherson and look forward to working through this difficult issue.
A question was placed at that time - and an important question too, and we need to have this clearly presented from government at this time. We know NLC’s position. We know the position, generally, of AFANT and of other members of the community, but we are not sure of the position of government. They have said that they have opposed the Blue Mud Bay decision, and that is why they have put in their opposition to the High Court. The next step needs to be responded to; that being, will the Territory government lobby the federal government to protect the public’s right to fish? Will they or will they not? That question is still hanging in the balance. Will they have that resolved? What side of that ledger will they fall on? Will they stand up and fight to protect the public - that is, everyone’s - right to fish or not? It appears by the absence of a definitive response on that threshold question that the answer must, therefore, I assume, be no. That is a course that must be pursued with rigour to ensure that central freedom can be protected, and all must be done to ensure that. I ask that not just because I am one who enjoys fishing but, more so, I am concerned about the potential that this, if not managed correctly and with courage, could promote greater division and discord within our community.
There are ways of solving the ownership matters - other ways - but I do not want to see a situation where there is going to be this clash, conflict and division, particularly in light of the discussions we have had here today. There has to be a peeling away of this and getting to the core of it and finding a place where we can stand together. If we allow these decisions to be removed from us, and we defer it to other bodies and say: ‘There is not a lot we can do, we have done this and we have done that’, we may be held negligent. I believe John Christopherson has shown the courage that is necessary to fight on this battlefield. There are those in AFANT who are also prepared to find a new place and cut a new path through this. For goodness sake, do not be missing in action on this one. It is a critical issue - not because of the right and freedom to fish but because of the potential for division and disharmony that could generate from an issue like this if handled incorrectly. It needs a hands-on approach and it will require the sort of courage we have already seen. That is the access issue at that level. The question still sits there unanswered: what really is the position of the Territory government on this matter?
Another matter of infrastructure relating to access is the boat ramps. The strength of feeling as presented at the AFANT AGM was largely directed to the access in terms of the permits. As you recall, at last year’s AGM, and this one also to a lesser degree, there was concern about the boat ramps and the roads leading to those boat ramps. There is a lot of work to be done. Some of it was covered in the minister’s statement. I know that the minister has received some information from Paul Van Bruggen relating to some specifics concerning boat ramps. Getting down to brass tacks, there are some real practical matters that need to be attended to, and I know that they have been outlined to you. That is the sort of thing that a fisherman wants to see.
Not so long ago, I was fishing at Adelaide River boat ramp. I had the job of jumping off, just in time before there was not enough water in the river, to hold onto the boat and then go up and get the vehicle and back it down. I was up to almost my waist in grey blue mud to get out of there. Then, I found that the car park had a lot of holes in it, with water everywhere. Fortunately, I am confident enough to back up, but it took me a long time to get the mud from near the boat ramp off myself. There is a bit of work that needs to be done out there. It has already been outlined.
You probably know, minister, that there was a practical response to the concerns which amateur fishermen have regarding maintenance of boat ramps. There was a group of about 30 to 40 volunteers who went out last Saturday to the Channel Island boat ramp. They did it as volunteers, as good citizens. They cannot wait for government to do these things so they got together and did it themselves. Many local businesses gave some prizes to the kids for cleaning up rubbish around the boat ramps. There were trees that had to be cut down because signs could not be seen. That is a boat ramp I used to fish from when I had a boat, before I got into this line of work and do not have a lot of time for fishing any more. I used to go down there a lot and it has deteriorated. You can blame the former government, but you would be mad to do so. The fact is that wattle trees had grown up in front of signs and you could not see the signs any more. There was rubbish all over the place. They brought their own pressure cleaner and cleaned up the boat ramp.
Mr Warren: You got yourself caught out on that one.
Mr MILLS: There was nearly - sorry?
Mr Warren: I said, you got yourself caught out on that one.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: No, I did not actually.
Mr Warren: It was the previous government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder!
Mr MILLS: No, just in case you are a bit confused there, in fact …
Mr Warren: I am not confused.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: Do not encourage him, Ted.
Mr MILLS: No, I had better not.
My reference was that you want to go there and create that kind of defence, but it would be wrong because these problems have arisen in the past five years. The wattle trees growing all over the place have grown in the last five years or so.
The question was: do we wait and ask questions at AFANT AGMs or do we just get together and do something about it. They did it and I was happy to cook a barbecue for them. We had a good time and they felt good about it. Mind you, it was hot and humid and they picked an excellent day. That was a fish finder forum. I commend those citizens’ action and their spirit of community service. They will be continuing to do such things because they recognise it is the amateur fishermen themselves who create a lot of that mess. So, they are taking a role, which I believe is a good one, of rather than seeing things in the political sense, they provided some practical response to concerns they had.
However, I did note that some matters were really out of their domain, such as managing of signs, cleaning up of the rubbish around the place, and tidying up the access to that boat ramp, including the pressure cleaning. Many of those matters have been raised with the minister directly and I trust that they will be responded to. They are the sorts of things that the amateur fishermen need to see - that kind of care to the detail and work at the end of a boat ramp when all the rocks fall away and it is very difficult to get your boat lifted up over that lip onto the concrete. A lot of those rocks have just moved away. We seem to have many labourers around the place or potential workers, perhaps, in the gaols. I am sure they would like to give a hand with some of these projects and make a contribution and build up that important infrastructure. However, it does need to be attended to.
The next question that needs to be addressed is the Palmerston boat ramp and the long-held plan for a fishing platform at the Palmerston boat ramp and to enhance security - to build a public facility for the families at Palmerston. It has been crafted, I think cleverly, by government as a political football where they can kick it across to the Palmerston City Council and create the scenario that they are the villains. I do not buy it for a moment because I have seen how the whole thing is structured. Palmerston City Council fulfilled an obligation that the Northern Territory government required of them. They have now, I understand, handed it back to the Territory government, so that will end the blame game.
Palmerston residents, for nine or more years, have wanted some improvements to that boat ramp. Now, at the end of blame games, they are not interested so much in the blame game, for the ball is now in the Territory government’s court. That needs to be responded to. There have been promises and assurances made that did not manifest in the form that the Palmerston community thought. There were some changes made to the bridge, but that was nowhere near what they thought they were going to get. There have been public meetings held in Palmerston; there has been a clearly defined plan that has been presented both to the Territory government and to the Palmerston City Council. They have done their reviews and assessments, but they have given it back to the Territory government where it was meant to be in the first place, in my view. We want to see some action on that.
With an early election coming up, I am sure it will form the basis of an election commitment, as it has from the CLP. As a local member, that is something that I want to see fixed. I want to see Harry Rowe’s floating platform down there as well. I would like to raise Harry Rowe’s name in this context and ask that the minister – I am sure you have had a meeting with Harry Rowe. If you have not ...
Mr Natt: I have had a couple.
Mr MILLS: Good, good. He has a good idea and it is worth backing. I have seen it over at Tiwi Islands. That is his jetty there. It works; it is not just an idea. I have seen the photographs from other places, and there are plenty of old tyres around the place - and we are in the spirit of recycling. It would work. I believe he needs to be backed by the Territory government to provide sensible infrastructure in the tropics, in the Top End.
I am curious that, at the AFANT AGM the other day, one question which they all seemed to nod knowingly about - which I have had to investigate since – is the huge pile of dirt on Dick Ward Drive with the flow-off into the rivers, the creeks and the mangroves system there. There was concern about that wash-off. I thought, quite curiously, there was something not right. ‘Yes, I understand the issue’, said the minister, and that you would now bring it to the attention of the appropriate minister. I thought that was quite good. However, I thought the appropriate minister was sitting next to you ...
Mr Kiely: Do you want the answer?
Mr MILLS: You had the opportunity to answer that question in full view of everyone at AFANT. People noticed. They said: ‘Hang on, why did you not just pass the microphone to the bloke to the left?’. Why did you not stand up on your hind legs and give an explanation rather than duck it at that time? I thought that was …
Mr Kiely: Oh, listen to you.
Mr MILLS: … an opportunity …
Mr Kiely: Have you got yourself a fishing licence yet? Have you? Do not talk to me about ducking things.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I thought there was an opportunity there to respond, as a minister of the Crown, to an issue raised that was of concern to constituents in your presence, rather than sit there and hope that it would go away. That is the sort of stuff that we need to see.
I have done some investigation on that matter, and I do look forward to seeing a response - not just me, as I am not trying to make this personal. However, there was, in your official capacity, minister, the opportunity to pass the microphone and we would all have been made aware of the issue that was raised, which I noticed many were concerned about. I did not know a lot about it at the time but I have found out about it since. I am still left with the question: why on earth the relevant minister, rather than passing it on to him at a later stage, would not just pop up and give us an answer on that one?
I commend you, minister, for the broad statement covering a number of very important areas and aspects of this very unique experience that we have in the Northern Territory. May you catch a few extra fish this year than you did last year. I do not think I caught any last year - not in the Territory. At Christmas time I caught some at Rottnest Island which was tremendous - a herring or two. They were good eating too.
I wish you and your department well. I know there is a fair amount of pressure, as you described at the AGM, in terms of the resources within the department. That was quite clear at estimates. I hope you gain the support of your Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the capacity of this very important agency is bolstered and strengthened so that we can achieve the things that we all agree on. This is most important infrastructure, both socially and economically for the Northern Territory. I support the statement.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on what is really a very important economic driver for the Northern Territory. It is critical that the work they are doing in research and getting the database on stock levels continues at the pace that they are carrying it out because, unless you have the finite information around a species and stock levels, you cannot plan effectively for the future.
I particularly welcome inside the statement the new Recreational Fishing Access Working Group comprising representatives from across the board - from the Department of Justice from the legal point of view; AFANT with the amateur anglers and fishermen; the Department of Planning and Infrastructure which is the body that engineers and designs this type of infrastructure; Primary Industry and Fisheries; and Treasury which is there to keep an eye on the cost and to identify and coordinate those new fishing access and infrastructure projects.
This was a question that came up a couple of years ago when the minister for fishing and I, as Treasurer, were at the AFANT AGM. We made that commitment together that we would get a working group together with all of those sorts of people on it because there were concerns that, despite budgeting quite extensively for new access and fishing infrastructure year-by-year, the roll-out of those items year-by-year was problematic for a whole range of reasons. Therefore, the existence of that group will see that clear priorities are attached, that those priority items get their proper priority, and that any issues in achieving the development of that infrastructure is identified early and any hurdles overcome and rectified early through the cooperation of each of those agencies - be it legal, financial, planning, design or engineering – and, of course, getting the priorities right from within the amateur group itself. I welcome that fulfilment of that commitment we made a couple of years ago. I believe it will work for everyone.
The Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit does fine work, as the minister suggests. There was a time, of course, when this unit almost failed to exist; it was so severely depleted following years of neglect by the previous CLP government of our Police Force. There has been considerable growth in the Police Force over the past six years. I trust that some of those resources have found their way into the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit and that it is bolstered a little more than in previous years.
Turning to the Blue Mud Bay Federal Court decision and the High Court appeal, it is interesting to see that the Country Liberal Party has quite a range of views being expressed on this issue. We well recall the Leader of the Opposition’s indignant interview on ABC radio last year when he claimed, in the first instance, that he did not understand the decision, despite the fact that he has a responsibility as a legislator in this Northern Territory parliament to understand the law. So, he did not understand it. Not only did he not understand the law, he stated he would not, under any circumstances, be applying for a permit as required under the Federal Court’s decision of that time. Again, as a legislator, he carries a heavier responsibility than most to uphold all laws of the Territory whether, in fact, they are Northern Territory or federal, and whether he agrees with them or not. In fact, if he disagrees with any law, be it federal or Territory, he has an opportunity, as the Leader of the Opposition, to take that issue out, campaign on it, take Territorians with him, in order to change that law. He does not have the luxury of not attempting to even understand that law, nor does he have the right to break any law - federal or Territory.
More recently, he issued a media release asking the Northern Territory government to detail its contingency plan around the High Court’s decision, whichever way it might go. In the media release, he stated that if the High Court determines that traditional owners do, in fact, have exclusive possession then that is a failing of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. That is a breathtaking assumption to make, but it is totally in sync with the traditional views of successive Country Liberal Party governments in the Northern Territory, all of which have had one thing in common; that is, to demean the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, to vigorously challenge every successful land grant no matter how strong that claim may have been, no matter the rights involved and, certainly, no matter the costs involved in fighting them.
The Kenbi land claim, just as one example, took 20 years and $20m. I believe totally, absolutely, that if the CLP were still in government today, the Kenbi land claim would still be far from settled, and that $20m would still be escalating on the cash register. They do not, never have, and never will, accept that traditional owners have rights granted to them under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This exclusive access to the intertidal zone where it abuts around Gove Aboriginal land is one of these rights, the same as the Kenbi claim was a right won in the courts. They continued to fight it every day for 20 years at a cost of $20m to the taxpayer, no matter the strength of the claim.
The Leader of the Opposition’s position put forward in his media release is for the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory to pay to ensure free access for fishermen. The outcome for continued free access is, of course, the desired outcome for the Northern Territory government, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, I believe, for everyone in the Northern Territory. However, the simplistic solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to grab a bag of cash - do not worry about how big that bag of cash might have to be - and buy the rights to fish free for everyone. That is it, end of story, no further negotiation, no further explanation, no further exploration of the issues involved - just decide on the sum of money.
The CLP Senator for the Northern Territory, Nigel Scullion, also, of course, opposed the Federal Court decision but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I think he actually understood it. At least he did not say that he did not understand it. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, he did not make any claims that he would not be obtaining a permit. Senator Scullion, in the NT News on 6 December, said if the government lost the case then the law should be changed - simple as that. If the government loses the case in the High Court, then the law should be changed. What the article did not mention was whether Senator Scullion had any understanding of what that might mean.
To legislate away the rights of the traditional owners, of course, would invoke compensation - indeed, in quite massive terms - which would be required under the just terms compensation where any compulsory acquisition of a property right has occurred. Buying out the exclusive right to fish on waters on or over Aboriginal land identified under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act could be done - no question about it, it could be done. Anything may be compulsorily acquired by governments but it invokes just terms compensation. It is the price tag that accompanies that acquisition that is the issue. An exclusive right to access and fish all waters on or over Aboriginal land is being bought out not for six months, one year, 20 years, or 99 years as Mal Brough would probably have it, but forever. For forever and a day you are extinguishing that exclusive right. That would be a breathtaking figure, indeed. Where do you start - $3bn, $5bn, $10bn? Any figure at all could be argued and put on the table and, in fact, could well be negotiated - not the question. It could well be bought out after negotiation. However, what would be worrying me with my past cap as Treasurer is: where does that figure rest? That issue aside, at least the CLP Senator for the Northern Territory had a view, even if not fully covered in that Northern Territory News article.
There is another CLP view, which was expressed quite vigorously during the last federal election campaign. We were out in the Laynhupuy Homelands doing remote mobile polling, and this view was put by Peter Manning who was handing out CLP how-to-vote cards in these communities. Mr Manning has been the CLP candidate for Nhulunbuy the past two Territory elections. I believe he is fairly clearly identified to the voters out there as a voice of the CLP. I make that clear because he was, at the time and probably still is, also an executive member of the Seafood Council. However, if you are talking about the context of an election campaign and a person handing out CLP brochures and how-to-vote cards for the CLP, I can only assume he was talking for the CLP at this time and not the Seafood Council.
In four different but very key homeland communities in the Blue Mud Bay area - the home of the litigation that has led us all of the way to the High Court; so there is no more area in which the issues around Blue Mud Bay are important than, of course, Blue Mud Bay itself - Mr Manning told senior traditional owners in each case: ‘We do not have a problem. In fact, we hope you win it’. ‘We do not have a problem with the High Court, in fact we hope you win it’, said Peter Manning, CLP representative. How does that stack up with what Terry Mills has been saying? One, he does not understand it, but how does it stack up with the CLP Senator? How does it stack up with CLP policy? Peter Manning is the voice of the CLP in north-east Arnhem Land: ‘We hope you win it’.
That is quite a new, novel and, indeed, very different twist to the views, as I said, put by the Leader of the Opposition. We know he does not understand it; he will not get a permit. The CLP Senator for the Northern Territory understands the decision and disagrees with it. However, the CLP’s representative in Nhulunbuy said: ‘We hope you win it’.
This took me straight back to the CLP of old. Steve Hatton, the former member for Nightcliff, was very good at this. In fact, he became a member of the Marika family, the Rirratjinu clan at Yirrkala. He was great friends with Djuwalpi and Bakamumu Marika. It has taken me years to pull them back to the Labor Party - even now I am not sure of Djuwalpi. He stood against the member for Arnhem, not very successfully. We have established a great personal relationship over the years; however, you never take anyone for granted, particularly the Marikas.
Anyway, Steve Hatton used to visit indigenous communities a lot, but particularly at Yirrkala, because he was quite taken with the Marikas. He was good at telling indigenous people in those communities what he thought they wanted to hear. A week later, he would stand in this parliament and say something totally and completely different. The CLP still marvel and wonder why so many indigenous communities across the Northern Territory will not have truck with them - do not trust them, never have and never will. Well, it is the Steve Hattons and the Peter Mannings of the CLP who put that distrust, that fear, and that dislike into the minds and hearts of many indigenous Territorians across this great part of Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to have a go at putting some substantial meat around the CLP’s policy on this because it is a critical issue and people are entitled to know what the CLP stands for on this matter, other than they oppose the decision. He also has to try to ensure that everyone who speaks for the CLP, Peter Manning included, sings off the same song sheet because, otherwise, it is dishonest, deceitful, easily discredited and, again, lends itself to the distrust, the fear, and the dislike of the CLP that is so prevalent in Aboriginal communities.
Whichever way the High Court rules on this - and we will not know until about mid this year - it is critical that this government, the Seafood Council, the Northern Land Council, the communities, and AFANT all work together to ensure that there are ownership opportunities within the fishing and aquaculture industries for the people who live on these coastal communities that abut and surround the affected waters. That has to be an absolute bottom line outcome whichever way the decision falls, because the fishing industry provides great potential for ownership, partnerships and, most importantly, employment for all those indigenous coastal communities that remains largely untapped to date.
I encourage the minister to ensure that that preliminary work that was being done continues, and there is a coming together of each of the parties involved to map out the future for indigenous employment, involvement, and ownership within the industry. Those outcomes have to be built into whatever final settlement is reached, whether the traditional owners will have exclusive access, or whether the Northern Territory wins the High Court appeal and the status quo of no exclusive rights and no requirement for permits is returned to.
However, providing buckets of dollars by way of compensation for - in the case of Senator Scullion’s idea - legislative amendment, does not produce one job, one employment opportunity, or any business or entrepreneurial activity in those Aboriginal communities. Neither does providing dollars straight out to pay for the costs of permits should traditional owners demand payment for access in the event that they win in the High Court. All parties in this matter with a vested interest in the outcome need to be flexible, creative, innovative, and they must carry goodwill into these negotiations to ensure that we have a win/win outcome for all involved, regardless of whether the appeal is won or lost.
Much goodwill has already been established between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council because of the necessary coming together of how we are going to handle the interim process once the Federal Court decision was handed down, and the intervening period of uncertainty until such time as the High Court considered the matter and handed down its decision. I believe there is an opportunity to continue to build on that goodwill between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council.
We have, in Mr Wali Wunungmurra, the new Chairman of the Northern Land Council, a great personal friend, but a highly respected indigenous leader in north-east Arnhem Land, which is home to these communities. He understands firsthand the issues around the Blue Mud Bay decision. It is an emotive issue, and it involves powerful interests and, of course, invokes powerful politicis.
I do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to display creativity, flexibility, innovation or anything by way of those qualities, because he has no interest in indigenous employment in remote and coastal communities, in indigenous rights - and that has always been the CLP way – and in an innovative, creative win/win situation. The Leader of the Opposition often implores this government to get above the politics of the issue - as recently as this morning, standing in this Chamber; imploring the Chief Minister to put politics aside and let us work together on this matter.
Therefore, I invite him, if he is capable, of doing exactly the same on this matter, otherwise he stands condemned as a grubby, uninformed hypocrite - and that is his choice. That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. Try to be a little creative …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Go and have a beer, mate, that is where you belong. That is all you are good for. Go and have another beer. Go and get drunk …
Mr Conlan: You know what they say about old men in sports cars.
Mr STIRLING: You go and have another beer. Go and get drunk again, Matt …
Mrs MILLER: Oh, disgusting! A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr STIRLING: … instead of being a nuisance in here if you cannot contribute.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy! Order!
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask you to withdraw your last comments.
Mr STIRLING: What, withdraw the truth, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask you to withdraw your last comments.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw my last comments …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: The bit about being true.
I implore – no, I do not implore the Leader of the Opposition at all; that is what he does to this government. The challenge for him, as I said, is to be a little creative, a little innovative and get above the politics because he is very good at asking that of everyone else. Is he capable of doing the same himself and producing a policy position in this matter?
To ensure there is no misconstruing of any remarks I have made here tonight, this government does not agree with permits - never has and will not into the future. For six-and-a-half years, we have been in government and we have been consistent on that point, even when there was a will by those within AFANT for us to introduce permits. We resisted it then, we will resist it now. We do not agree with it, but we do have to respect and uphold the law which, of course, is the responsibility of governments and parliaments and members of them.
If there is a way to work through an adverse High Court decision on this, maintain the access …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, your time has expired.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Thanks, Madam Speaker. If it had not been for the ill manners of the member for Greatorex, I would have finished my contribution within the time allowed.
If there is a way to work through these quite complex issues, get back to the situation that we had prior to the last Federal Court decision - that is, maintain the access without permits - then this government will find that way and it will create a win/win situation for all involved. That is a challenge this government lives with and is facing up to. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition showed a little - just a little - of the same sense of responsibility.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House. Reading through the further development and continuation of work that has been done, as a former Fisheries minister, I congratulate our current Fisheries minister for the great work that he and the department has done.
As the House knows, I am a keen fisherman but, probably like the Leader of the Opposition, I do not get much of a chance right now to go out fishing. I certainly look at it with interest. I can see that the government and the minister are very focused on ensuring sustainability of our fish stocks. That is very important, because they are coming under increasing pressure, no doubt, from the increasing population in Darwin. It is good for the marine businesses that sell boats and outboard motors; there are certainly more boats around, more people going fishing and, I believe, more pressure on fish stocks.
I know that the minister is looking at issues such as buy-back of licences. There has already been a considerable number that have been bought back, and that is fantastic news for anglers. There are also studies going on about those species that are susceptible to overfishing, particularly the species that take quite a long time to reach maturity: the golden snappers, the jewfish, etcetera. Fishing is so great up here that we want to sustain it for the next generation of fishers. Basically, I believe the minister and the government is on the right track there.
I will follow on from the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to Blue Mud Bay and, once again, state the government’s position regarding Blue Mud Bay. As all members are aware, there is a High Court challenge going on at present to the decision of the Federal Court that the Aboriginal land rights should apply to those areas between the high tide mark and the low tide mark. We are vigorously appealing that decision on the basis that we believe there needs to be clarification around this particular issue.
I understand that the Blue Mud Bay case decision will be handed down in March or some time around there. I believe it was a very positive development late last year that the Northern Land Council, in its statement of claim, acknowledged that the Fisheries Act did apply to that water, because there was a lot of doubt about that. That is a clarification that is welcomed by everyone. The last thing we need is lack of clarity around the application of the Northern Territory Fisheries Act. That is a welcome progression.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition asking hypothetical questions about what the government might do if our appeal is unsuccessful. His questions were exactly that - hypothetical questions. No one can second guess the verdict of the High Court in this matter. There is a spectrum of possibilities within their judgment. It is such a complex issue, it is just foolish of anyone to try to be hypothetical about what the High Court may decide. At one end, of course, there is the spectrum that they uphold our appeal, the other end of the spectrum is that they dismiss our appeal. Between those two possibilities there are many other possibilities, so it is foolish for anyone to try to hypothesise and ask hypothetical questions about what our position is.
As the member for Nhulunbuy and the minister said, we are rock solid on one issue: we have opposed fishing permits. We opposed them when I was minister. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, AFANT was lobbying government for the introduction of a fishing permit where people paid, and there would be a fund for fishing research to ensure sustainability of fishing stocks. We opposed that then, we oppose that now, and we oppose other forms of fishing permits.
It was important that I place that on the record in closing this debate so there is absolutely no doubt about that. Let us not jump the gun on the High Court decision. Let us wait and see what the High Court, in their wisdom, hands down. Then we will be making plans from there.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the parliament and congratulate the minister and the department for the great work they are doing safeguarding our fish stocks and ensuring sustainability and that fishing is the lure of the Territory.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support this important statement on fisheries delivered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The Northern Territory is blessed by nature’s bounty from the dry arid lands of Central Australia to the wet tropics of the north. We see, feel and experience rare beauty and rich endowment of plants and animals. Our seas, harbours, estuaries, rivers and billabongs sustain a rich diversity of aquatic species. Fishing is in our blood.
From ancient times to the present, fishing has been important here. Aquatic resources have always been integral to the culture, art and diet of the first Australians. In more recent times, strong commercial and recreational fishing sectors have emerged. Tourism-based fishing makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Iconic events such as the Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals have put the Territory on the national and international fishing maps. The beauty of the Territory and our unsurpassed lifestyle have received extensive exposure from television programs such as Andrew Ettinghausen’s Escape with ET and none other than the famous Alex Julius’ Fishing North Australia. Our pristine waters, river systems and fishing feature strongly in these programs.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Tourism NT highlight visitors’ participation in fishing. Over 50 000 visitors, 6% of the visitors to NT annually, fish at least once during their stay. Higher participation rates emerge in Darwin, up to 40%, and coastal regions, 52%, compared to other locations. Almost half - 48% - of all visiting fishers or members of their party bring fishing gear with them and a significant portion, 12%, bring a boat to the Territory.
I know from a good friend of mine, George Voukolos from Fishing and Outdoor World, that they add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the local economy. I mention George as a true Territorian and business operator and passionate fisherman. He runs the longest-running, privately-owned fishing and tackle shop in the whole of Australia. He is a fantastic advocate for the Territory lifestyle. People come here just to see him. I have many times fished with him on the Daly River. We have promised to take the member for Johnston with us to the Daly River, and we will. This Dry Season we will, and we will fish with lures, and catch beautiful fish in the Daly River.
One of the very proud achievements, as a government - particularly from the first term and carried on to this term, that this Cabinet and my colleagues as a Caucus has voted on - is the protection of an unbelievable resource like the Daly River. We have seen the damage caused to many of the rivers down south. We know the science of history was not as good as it is now, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Daly River is an icon. As the largest, running freshwater river in the Top End, it is incumbent on us to protect it for future generations so that my son and his sons and daughters can one day go less than 175 km from Darwin, put in a boat and catch beautiful fish. It is a fantastic achievement by this government, and a testament to our green credentials.
It is estimated that $35m of the Territory’s annual tourism income is derived from commercial fishing. Tourist-based fishing is significant to the Territory and receives strong support from the government. Recreational fishing opportunities for local fishers are also a top priority of the government. There is nothing like a day’s fishing with family and friends. It can be good for the diet and it is always good for the body and soul. My electorate of Millner is bounded by Rapid Creek. Darwin is one of the few cities in the world that can boast a pristine waterway flowing between its suburbs. I suppose you have heard this before, but I caught my first ever barramundi at Rapid Creek. I cannot even remember how old I was, but I would have been in my early teens if not nine or 10. It was a fantastic feeling to catch that first barramundi, and to do it in a beautiful environment like Rapid Creek was fantastic. I know, Madam Speaker, you have a passion for it yourself as Rapid Creek comes through the Nightcliff electorate at its mouth
When growing up in Darwin, it was common for local families to fish in Rapid Creek, Buffalo Creek, the rocks at East Point and other locations around the shores of our magnificent harbour. Participation of local residents in fishing is also confirmed by statistics. It is a hard word for me to say but I will repeat it, statistics.
Over 42 000 non-indigenous NT residents go fishing in the Territory annually. Around one in every four resident households owns a pleasure boat - over 11 500 in total. Of these, 80% are at least used partially for recreational fishing with 59% used exclusively for fishing. A total of over 430 000 days are fished annually by recreational fishers, representing 2.2 million hours of fishing effort. Residents account for the majority of the effort: 77% fished at an average of eight days annually and over five hours per day. Barramundi is the most popular target species accounting for over 38% of all hours fished. Visitors target barramundi to a greater extent; 48% of our visitor hours are fished for that particular fish. Darwin Harbour is the main fishing area accounting for close to half, 45%, of all hours fished followed by the McArthur region with 11%, with all other regions below the 10% level.
The minister’s statement made direct mention of the benefits of our commercial fishing industry in value of production and employment. Approximately 1450 people are employed in the commercial seafood industry and gross value of production at the point of sale is about $30m.
All the points I have made so far point to one overwhelming conclusion, which is the underlying thrust of the minister’s statement and I congratulate him for this. It is this: all of us - government, citizens, fishers, stakeholder groups and visitors - share a responsibility to ensure that our aquatic environment and sustainable fisheries are maintained and remain secure for future generations. This government takes great care in its thought process for what will happen into the future. I know this minister will do his damndest to ensure that we and our children and our children’s children will have the same opportunities that we do now.
All of the policies and initiatives in the minister’s statement are captured by this overriding objective: good public policy informed by consultation and research that will deliver positive outcomes for sustainable fisheries. I do not intend to elaborate on all the initiatives mentioned in the minister’s statement, but some of the measures mentioned are noteworthy.
As the Minister for Sport and Recreation and Minister for Young Territorians, I am delighted to support the junior recreational fishing workshops held in Nhulunbuy and Katherine. The workshops promote recreational fishing and provide education on handling fish correctly and respecting our natural environment. Projects such as this are invaluable. I commend and congratulate all of those involved in this work. Good fishing skills are compatible with good environmental management.
I also acknowledge the minister’s continuing commitment to the marine rangers programs in remote locations. I note that $60 000 is allocated annually to marine programs undertaken by the following groups: the Tiwi Marine Rangers, the Gumurr Marthakal Marine Rangers, the Mardbalk Marine Rangers, the Thamarrurr Marine Rangers, the Djelk Sea Rangers, the Anindilyakwa Sea Rangers, the Numbulwar Sea Rangers and the li-Anthawirriyarra Sea Rangers unit from Borroloola …
Ms McCarthy: Lee-Antha-wirri-yarra.
Mr BONSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, which was often pointed out in the last sittings, I have a problem with saying my Ls, so I am unapologetic for that. It is a problem I have had to deal with all my life and I am overcoming the shy nature of my personality.
These programs fulfil twin policy objectives that provide ongoing training opportunities for indigenous Territorians. Over 45 rangers are employed in the program - obviously a great potential for further employment through initiatives through Closing the Gap and, hopefully, working with the Commonwealth government on the intervention. The Marine Rangers program has also enhanced the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. I am sure all honourable members will agree that we are fortunate to secure the involvement in our fisheries of the Territorians who have intimate knowledge of our coastal habitats.
As a long-time Darwinite and an occasional fisherman – and in position I am in - I have to say that before I entered politics I was quite a keen fisherman. I am pleased to support the fisheries initiatives the government has undertaken in Darwin’s magnificent harbour and other local waterways. The government has bought back nine out of 14 commercial net fishing licences and closed Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to inshore coastal net fishing, which is a fantastic initiative. We are also expanding the artificial reef network in the Darwin region, including scuttling the 27 m Medkehanun III. The government also arranged scuttling of three decommissioned vessels to expand the Lee Point artificial reef complex. These new reefs have been added to the existing sites within the harbour and, at the Lee Point artificial reef complex, they will enhance fishing opportunities for all anglers.
I hope that one day before my time is out in this House, I will get the opportunity to show the people of this House - my colleagues and opposition if they want - how I see Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay and how we fish and hunt that area. It is a beautiful place.
Measures such as these confirm that the government’s commitment to recreational fishing is strong and tangible. There is also strong commitment to fund scientific research which will support the protection of fishing stocks and habitats. We are a government that listens. It is pleasing to know that the minister and his department consult widely when developing policy and formulating initiatives. I can assure all listeners that I have witnessed the conversations that this minister and we, as a Cabinet and Caucus, have had in relation to recreational fishing. Let there be no doubt that we are very keen to protect that wonderful lifestyle that we take for granted.
The statement mentions a range of organisations which have contributed to the policy outcomes and initiatives. The following organisations have all made substantial contributions: Territory Seafood Council; Tiwi Land Council; Anindilyakwa Land Council; Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, otherwise known as AFANT; Recreational Fishing Access Working Group; Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit; Australian Fisheries Management Authority; and the University of Queensland.
The government continues to support recreational fishing through its funding of peak organisations. This year, AFANT, the peak body representing the interests of recreational anglers in the Territory, received $175 000 to employ staff and to administer the small grants program for fishing clubs. What an unbelievable initiative by this Territory government. The NT Guided Fishing Industry Association received an allocation of $40 000 for the past three years to support its operations - another fantastic initiative. I know the minister is keen to maintain an effective dialogue with NT fishers and their representative organisations.
The statement delivered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, reaffirms the government’s ongoing commitment to sustainable fishing in the Northern Territory. The minister is passionate about our Territory lifestyle, aquatic environments and long-term sustainability of our aquatic resources.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support his ministerial statement and commend it to this Assembly.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, that is a hard act to follow! I wish to contribute as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as infrastructure is critical to access to our fantastic fisheries. In 2005, the government committed some $10m in funding over four years for one of the Territory’s favourite recreational activities, fishing. Fishing is a very important part of our Territory lifestyle. This government has an excellent track record in investing in fishing infrastructure and, importantly, our maintenance projects. Investment ensures that tried and true fishing sites continue to provide opportunities for launching and retrieving vessels. Investment in new sites also helps to open up new fishing opportunities for access by more Territorians and our interstate visitors who come here for the lure of our great fishing.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is responsible for the repair, maintenance and any improvements to 24 boat ramps across the Territory. All other ramps are either managed by local governments or the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts. The government has heard the concerns raised in the fishing industry about our ramps becoming more slippery. Typically, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure organises our concrete ramps be water blasted twice every year. We have listened to these concerns and have now increased the water pressure blasting to four to six weeks as of December, due to the rough weather dragging up mud and increased algae. We hope that this improves the safety of the ramps and meets the concerns of our recreational fishermen. Maintenance of ramps is important. It includes rubbish collection, mowing and slashing of grass, de-silting of coastal ramps every two to four months, and identified repairs as a result of vandalism or, indeed, from erosion due to wave or weather action. Erosion repairs are typically undertaken after the Wet, as some of our ramps may be inaccessible.
Significant planned repairs include: repairs to the end of the Corroborree Billabong ramp, a very popular fishing spot; additional significant maintenance repairs are planned to be undertaken at the fabulous Nightcliff jetty in the 2008-09 financial year - it has had significant works, and more works are headed out that way; and, significant maintenance repairs are planned to be undertaken on the Cullen Bay pontoon in the 2008-09 financial year.
Repairs and maintenance expenditure on recreational fishing infrastructure has been significant. In 2005-06, this government spent $987 000 in its repairs and maintenance of ramps and infrastructure, which includes initial preparation work for the construction of the Mule Creek ramp, and for the upgrading of the Rocky Creek ramp. In 2006-07, there was a significant expenditure of $695 000 and, in 2007-08, we anticipate $1.919m will be spent. That includes an additional $1.53m for the dredging of Cullen Bay.
Capital works and expenditure and fishing infrastructure include, in the 2005-06 financial year, Gregory National Park; where we had the Victoria River access and ramp for $1m. In 2006-07, there was the finalising of Mule Creek for $62 000. In 2005-06 to 2007-08, the Channel Point boat ramp for some $1.5m and, of course, in 2007-08, we have the East Arm boat ramp for $3.1m. In 2004, the Dinah Beach boat ramp received a significant upgrade. Top End anglers welcomed a $700 000 renovation to the boat ramp, which allowed for launching on 90% of tides. Government has also spent $500 000 upgrading the Buffalo Creek boat ramp, including the installation of power line extensions from Lee Point Road; nine lights at the car park; a walkway to the boat ramp; and a barbecue area. Security fencing and an additional 37 car parks have also been provided, adding to the usage and, importantly, the security of the site.
The East Arm boat ramp and the adjacent subdivisional works will ensure the facility will be state-of-the-art and include access for disabled Territorians to enjoy a great day’s fishing. Tenders were announced on 19 September last year. The budget is more than $3m for the ramp, access, parking and lighting. The tender is expected to be awarded in the coming weeks - great news for our anglers. Works will commence during March/April of this year, with completion anticipated after the Dry kicks in, in August/September of this year.
The Palmerston boat ramp – four years ago the Northern Territory government provided $150 000 to the Palmerston City Council to improve the Palmerston boat ramp. Sadly, they have not undertaken any works. I am now informed that they have given the money back minus $25 000 that they spent on a master plan that has not actually been publicly released. The Northern Territory government believes that the Palmerston boat ramp is an important facility in Palmerston. We will take over management of the site to ensure that it continues to be enjoyed by fishermen. The government will also pursue improvements to this ramp.
Many of the Territory’s top fishing sites are accessed via unsealed roads. The Territory road network covers vast areas of our Territory with only 23% of the network sealed. Investment in the road network is, in many respects, investing in our fishing industry. Our roads budget exceeds $180m. This is the highest amount in the Territory’s history and the highest per taxpayer in the country. We will continue our investment in roads - critical roads that service very popular fishing sites such as Shady Camp and Channel Point - to improve access.
The Recreational Fishing Access Working Group is a great initiative. The recent introduction of this group provides a high-level focus group with direct responsibility for identifying and coordinating new fishing access and, importantly, the infrastructure projects. I am looking forwarding to receiving advice from the group for consideration and future capital and minor new works programs.
This government will continue to support and provide options for recreational fishermen and our recreational fishing women in the Territory through targeted investment, listening to our recreational fishing women and men.
Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. The minister has a keen interest in ensuring that we continue to provide access and improvements across the Territory, in our regions and around our capital city, so that every one of us can get out there and enjoy a great day’s fishing.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their input to my statement. As we often say, fishing is the lure of the Territory, and it is a very apt term. The figures produced in the statement earlier show the importance of recreational fishing and commercial fishing to the Territory, in lifestyle and also the economy. It is incumbent on me and the government to manage it effectively and ensure the sustainability of the fishery is maintained. The future generations are the important ones. We are having good times on the rivers and the waters of the Northern Territory at the moment, and it is important that we ensure that the future generations are able to enjoy what we have here today.
The Northern Territory is leading the field in many areas and we often receive accolades for the management of our fishery from around Australia and the world. I cannot speak highly enough of the Fisheries Group for the work they undertake. I will speak more on that later.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his input. He was an attendee at the AFANT AGM on Sunday. He quite rightly pointed out that they are a passionate and well-informed group of individuals who just love their fishing. They want to ensure that the infrastructure and the viability of the fisheries are maintained.
He mentioned the reduction of the bag limits and the possession limits that are in place at the moment to ensure the future sustainability of our fish stocks. Decisions about bag limits are based on the science that goes into it and, if any of our resources are under threat, we will act very quickly.
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the survey and the importance of the survey. He recognised and thanked this government for initiating the survey. The survey to be undertaken will build on previous surveys undertaken by the Northern Territory and a joint Northern Territory/Commonwealth survey which was undertaken in 2001. This survey will be asking all local fishermen, as well as visitors, to undertake this survey over the next couple of years. I can assure everyone that it is going to be well planned and we will be seeking feedback from stakeholders on what information they would like to see go into this survey. Information taken from charters and fishing tour operators will be incorporated into that as well. We are currently working on some terms of reference and a consultant has been looking at that. That consultant will give us information on what we need to put into the survey. We are looking forward to what this survey produces. It is going to be something that has not been undertaken in the Northern Territory since 1995, as I understand. As mentioned previously, in 2001 it was a Commonwealth/Northern Territory survey.
We hope that it will be an ongoing process. It is important that we maintain the understanding of what fishing is all about in the Territory; what spots need to be looked after; and also fish numbers and the sustainability of certain species also.
The Blue Mud Bay decision was brought up at the AGM of AFANT and the government’s position is clear. I will read out what I said in my statement as I indicated to the AFANT AGM on Sunday:
The Leader of the Opposition also touched on the perceived lack of a collection of data. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that that is not the case. We keep good records on the fishing tour operators’ log books and also the commercial log books to ensure that numbers in specific areas are looked at and maintained. The Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals also play an important role in the data collection as well. The collection of data from those events is fed into the database which gives us long-term information on the stocks of the Daly and other rivers. The collection of data is important and the Fisheries department is ensuring that data collection is maintained.
I mentioned the importance and upgrade of those ramps. I was pleased to hear the member for Karama saying that the infrastructure expenditure has been recognised by her department, and that ongoing processes and maintenance will be undertaken on ramps into the future. I was pleased to hear that the cleaning of those ramps will be increased to a six-weekly cycle.
Recreational fishers like looking after their infrastructure. It was good to hear that they were involved in the working bee that was undertaken at Channel Island boat ramp. Matt Flynn, through his FFF Forum, is often asking for clubs to get involved to clean up rubbish around ramps. I am pleased to hear that these recreational fishermen are becoming involved with their local infrastructure and looking after what is there at the moment.
The Opposition Leader mentioned the Palmerston boat ramp, and it was also recognised by the member for Karama, as an important infrastructure for Palmerston. I am pleased to say that I met with the Mayor of Palmerston yesterday and the Palmerston boat ramp was discussed. We provided funding about four years ago of about $150 000 and $25 000 to $30 000 of that money was spent on an appraisal. We have a copy of that appraisal but, since then, I understand that the Palmerston council has decided to hand that money back to us. It was disappointing, as this probably could have been taken a little further because there were grants available through the federal government’s Recreational Fishing Infrastructure Grant process. We asked the Palmerston City Council to apply for one of those grants last year and they failed to do so. However, all is not lost. We are talking to the mayor now. As the member for Karama said, they are looking at the importance of the ramp there and I am sure more will be done.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his support of my statement. He recognised the importance of the Fishing Access Working Group. I thank him for his support when he was Treasurer. He had a lot of input on the understanding of the money that is required for infrastructure. It is pleasing to see that now that this working group has come together, we have representation from Treasury, DPI, my department of DPIFM, the Department of Justice and, also, the recreational fishing association; AFANT is having input into this Recreational Fishing Access Working Group as well. It looks at the public access liability issues and also at what infrastructure is required. The reason we got the Department of Justice involved is purely for the fact that the public access liability issues are important. We require that input from Justice to give us an understanding of what requirements are needed if we were to open up other areas of access.
The member for Nhulunbuy also mentioned the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit and the important role that they do play out on the water. They do some great work. I can report that more than 2700 recreational fishermen were questioned last year on bag limits, and inspections were undertaken on their boats. There were a number of recreational fishermen booked for being over the bag limit.
The Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit has also been involved heavily in enforcing arrangements for the commercial fishery. We have had reports of certain commercial fishermen overstepping their mark in certain areas of the coast, and the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit has been out on the water closely monitoring what is happening in those areas. It is also pleasing to know that they undertook an awareness program at King Ash Bay. As we all know, King Ash Bay is a very lively area during the Dry Season and has a large interstate visitor contingent that visits the area and does a lot of fishing. We have had reports that some of those fishermen where overstepping the limits, and the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit went down to conduct a workshop for awareness for the fishermen there so they understand what the Fisheries Act does entail and what bag limits they needed to look at.
The member for Nhulunbuy acknowledged the indigenous employment section. At Maningrida and Kulaluk we have had a mud crab program working. I know that my department has been working closely with those two communities to ensure that the viability of the mud crab industry is maintained in those two areas. It is pleasing to note also that the crablets that were supplied to these communities were supplied from the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. They pioneered a breeding cycle for the mud crab which is the first in the world. I understand that we supply them commercially for grow-out and Maningrida and Kulaluk were two of the first communities to be involved in that. My congratulations to the scientists at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre for the work they do there.
The other indigenous employment section that is doing some great work out on the waters is the marine rangers. I cannot speak highly enough of the marine rangers and the work they do as the eyes and the ears of our section on the water providing us feedback. There are opportunities there, and Fisheries provide real jobs for indigenous personnel for coastal communities. It is important that we get them and keep them in work out there. It is important for us to have that feedback from the marine rangers, and it is also important for them to get into the work environment and work in an area they love.
The member for Johnston, the former Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, has a great passion for this. As I said before, I am one of the lucky people here; I have a couple of really good portfolios. I know there are a number of people who would line up behind me to take my role at any stage. I know the member for Johnston would love to step into my shoes and pick up the portfolio that he left. He has a keen interest in recreational fishing.
He mentioned and recognised the importance of research that has been undertaken by the department. Some of the areas that I mentioned in my comments included the barotrauma. Some of the work that has been undertaken on the black jewfish has been amazing work. It has been run over a couple of years, but some of the data we are getting back now is giving a great insight into the life of the barra and how they work around their breeding points. Also, the catching and releasing of the black jewfish is important, because anything caught in depths of more than 10 m of water is going to suffer some sort of trauma and cannot be released. We have been putting out pamphlets and information to recreational fishermen so that they understand that, if they do catch their bag limit and they want to start releasing, they release the fish in a way that is not going to be harmful.
Another area of research that I mentioned briefly in my statement was the barra fingerlings. This is another area pioneered by the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. The barra fingerlings are bred-up at the centre and supplied for commercial use. If anyone ever gets the opportunity to visit the Darwin Aquaculture Centre, it is very interesting. They have a large tank with about six or eight large barramundi in it which they use for breeding purposes. The eggs are flushed into separate tanks, and those eggs are gradually bred into the small fingerlings. It is an amazing process. It is a very pristine process, very hygienic; you have to be clean to move from area to area. I commend the scientists in that area.
The member for Millner recognised the role of tourism in our economy, and the fact that the retailers in the Northern Territory are extremely grateful for the role that recreational fishing plays in the economy of the Northern Territory. Approximately 100 000 visitors coming up from down south all want to wet a line at some stage. The spin-off from that to the retailers is large, and the figure of $34.7m direct expenditure on recreational fishing is an amazing figure.
He also mentioned that he would like to look after the future of the waters surrounding the Northern Territory and all the waterways. He knows that they have to remain in pristine condition, and he recognised the work that the Fisheries department is doing to ensure that happens. He reminisced about his boyhood days when he used to fish at Rapid Creek. I am sure many other people of our age did the same. I am sure they can remember that fishing in those times was great, even though the lures, the infrastructure and boats, the rods and reels and everything you can buy now are greatly upgraded. I am sure they can still remember that the times of fishing back in those days were good, and they still remain that way. It is a pat on the back for all those who have been involved in the industry over these years to ensure that the fisheries industry remains a viable proposition.
He also recognised the Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay closure and the importance of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to the residents of the Northern Territory. As I said in my statement, around 60% of the residents of the Northern Territory fish in Shoal Bay or Darwin Harbour. It is an amazing figure. Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay play an important role in recreational fishing.
I was pleased to hear the contribution from the member for Karama. The infrastructure expenditure has been recognised. The access by fishers and visitors has been recognised by her department. It shows that the government departments are listening. Since I have been in this role, if any item has been brought to my attention that needs to be looked at, I go to the appropriate minister and the work is done or undertaken, and feedback is given, or the job is finished. It shows that this government is reactive and it does get work done that is required.
The repairs and maintenance of other infrastructure in and around the place can become very expensive. I know the member for Karama mentioned some substantial figures and that shows that her department has recognised the role that recreational fishing does play in the Territory, and they will maintain the infrastructure as best they can.
The regional and remote areas have been recognised. It is important that access to the regional and remote areas is maintained. It is critical, in many aspects, that we take the pressure off the local rivers such as the Daly because they can become overfished. That has been recognised by many of the recreational fishermen I talk to. To try to get access to some of these other fishing areas is important to this government. We are looking at that through the Recreational Fishing Access Working Group and to get to some of those areas …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the minister to conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr NATT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The road networks and the access to these areas is important and it is fantastic to hear that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will be considering the advice of the Recreational Fishing Access Working Group in many cases to see what access we can get to some of these remote and regional areas for fishing.
In finishing, Madam Speaker, the management by my Fisheries Group is of the highest class, as is the groundbreaking research that has been undertaken by this group. I recognise the work that the Fisheries Group does. I can assure everyone that they really do punch above their weight. They are dedicated to their roles, the people of the Northern Territory and sustainability of our fishery. I cannot speak highly enough of the work that they have undertaken to ensure that we maintain, manage effectively, and sustain our fishery. As long as I am in this role, Madam Speaker, I will continue to ensure that the future of our fishery remains healthy and well managed.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I put on the record my thanks to you, your office, and staff of the Assembly for all your assistance with my trip interstate under the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
I was keen to look at aquaculture developments in the Port Lincoln/Coffin Bay region of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. Whilst Port Lincoln has long been established as a centre for research into aquaculture, particularly tuna, the fishing village of Coffin Bay has more recently been gaining a very strong reputation as a centre for innovative research into oysters; in particular, the development and pursuit of very large, tender and flavoursome Pacific oysters which, I believe, will have the ability to command a huge premium in the market.
It is only a small village of about 600 permanent people, but it swells to over 4000 during the tourist and tuna season. Fortunately, I was there in the earlier part of December before the place filled up.
Before leaving Darwin, I had dinner at a Cullen Bay restaurant. I asked where the oysters were from and they said Coffin Bay. It was yet another reason to be headed that way. This should not be a surprise given that, despite its small size, Coffin Bay now exports to the UK, South Africa, Malaysia, and Hong Kong and, of course, in marketing, plans to push further into world markets as they develop a higher quality product.
It has a magnificent environment - pristine, with rich swellings of very strong nutrients providing a quick growing diet for the oysters in the beds outside Coffin Bay. In the early 1990s, they started quite small trials on those flats. They had fantastic growth rates and the industry simply has not looked back.
The success of the Elizabeth Bay pearling project under Arafura Pearls located 20 km south of Nhulunbuy raised the question to me as to whether the same clear waters that produce the pearls - in the case of Arafura Pearls - could also produce the oyster meat to an export quality such as at Coffin Bay. In fact, if it could be established, there would be a high potential for new aquaculture projects in the region and further potential for local indigenous ownership and employment. Looking after oysters is a labour-intensive industry, so there would be terrific employment opportunities for the Yolngu.
I had prearranged an inspection tour of an oyster aquaculture farm with Mr Kim Clark who lives in Port Lincoln but farms in the Coffin Bay region. Often the way, isn’t it? Unfortunately, 70 knot winds over the Eyre Peninsula including Port Lincoln and Coffin Bay, meant no boats left for the three days - of course, precisely the two days I was in Port Lincoln and three days in Coffin Bay when I intended to go out, and was invited out, for an on-site inspection. It simply was not possible to do that. I was disappointed on that score. It was the same period when the fires took hold on the peninsula next door and Kangaroo Island, with those very fierce winds that held up for quite some time.
I have written to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries asking what research and any findings into this industry have been carried out regarding potential viability for the Northern Territory because oysters have a fantastic future. If the Coffin Bay farmers succeed in their vision of producing these extra large, plump, tender and flavoursome Pacific oysters, they will capture even more of the available market at the moment. However, in all likelihood because it will be a new and premium product, they will not just continue to capture more of the market, I believe they will continue to grow the existing world market such as it is at the moment. Therein lies the opportunity for other producers to enter and satisfy a growing demand.
I also took the time to visit Timbercorp’s forestry project in the western part of Victoria. I believe in the work of our major forestry companies, Great Southern and Timbercorp, and have been a long-term investor in Timbercorp. There were early discussions in north-east Arnhem Land many years ago over the prospects of a forestry project. Some of that preliminary discussion was the possibility of growing forestry over reclaimed land once the bauxite had been removed, prior to Great Southern being established in the Tiwis. The soils are not great across what is largely a bauxite peninsula in the Gove region, but there is still a reasonable prospect of success given the very quick growth rate of these trees. However, those early discussions dissipated without result. Great Southern has shown what potential there is. It is a sign for other traditional owners to follow suit if they so wished and put those forestry projects on their country.
There have been very dry conditions across southern Australia over the past decade, particularly on the South Australian side of the border. Victoria has had reasonable rains the last two winters and a bit this summer, but the South Australian side, having more dry conditions than usual over the last 10 years, has slowed those growth rates. That is not an issue likely to affect forestry in the Northern Territory, given the reliability of our Wet Season rainfall. Nonetheless, both those companies are large and robust, and they will play a role in global warming strategies into the future.
My thanks to the Speaker and the staff of the Assembly for their assistance with this trip.
I commend Don McKinnon from Nhulunbuy High School who has been the coordinator for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards for many years, and his colleague, Hayden Woodroffe, who are taking a group of Duke’s students on the Kokoda Trail. Both experienced walkers, Don and Hayden have organised a team of students and adults - between 30 and 35 people at the moment - to tackle the trail in June. Recent media reports detailing local traditional owners’ wishes to mine the first part of the Kokoda Trail have cast doubts over the excursion unless it can be resolved quickly. I believe there has been quite strong movement on the issue. Approximately 6000 people each season walk the trail; it does provide employment for guides and porters, and royalties are paid by the trekking walkers to the villagers.
This trail is a very important part of both Australian and Papua New Guinea shared military and social history. Whilst walking the trail is never going to provide the financial benefit a mine may bring, you have to consider that it is probably an infinitely better prospect for the environment and a long-term sustainable income flow than you might get from a mine. Of course, that is up to the government there and the owners to work through with the mining interest.
As a Duke’s volunteer on the proposed high school’s trip I have a quite vested interest in the outcome. I thank Hayden Woodroffe for his very thoughtful, considerate invitation to me to join the group. I am excited by the challenge to be part of the high school team. I understand the Prime Minister of Australia is visiting soon if he has not already. I wish him well in his talks on this matter as Australia has been a strong proponent of seeking worldwide heritage, in conjunction and at the invitation of Papua New Guinea.
I congratulate our Australia Day Award recipients. This year’s Citizen of the Year Award went to Fiona Pearce, and Young Citizen, Dominic Bulters. Fiona earned, deservedly so, recognition through her tireless efforts organising fundraising efforts in community events and, in particular, the Relay for Life. The 18-hour event raised over $48 000 for cancer research. Not a bad effort for one person in a small town. Fiona continues to volunteer for community fundraisers to assist families and people in need. She is actively involved in a number of sporting clubs.
Dominic Bulters received his award for his contribution to both Nhulunbuy High School and the community. He is just an outstanding role model to his peers. He frequently represents students at forums and community events. He served on the student representative council, he has been house captain, and he is an enthusiastic sportsman participating in swimming and surf lifesaving. He is also a member of the Foundation for Young Australia for Your Eyes Only committee as a media liaison, and has travelled to Melbourne as a member of the Youth Change. He is a very fine young man. He has a terrific future ahead with his commitment and his enthusiasm to absolutely all aspects of family and community life. I am delighted that he is also part of the high school team that will be tackling the Kokoda Trail. I look forward to sharing his company on that trail in June.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night when I gave an adjournment I spoke on the Australia Day celebrations in Katherine. One of the young people I did not have a lot of information on was our Junior Sportsperson of the Year, Hayley Glass. Tonight, I put on the Parliamentary Record the achievements of Hayley.
Australia Day Katherine Times Junior Sportsperson of the Year was Hayley Kathleen Kara Glass. Hayley, aged 9, is the second daughter of Katherine-born parents, Allan and Katherine Glass, who was a Kelly, daughter of Jill and Douglas Kelly of Katherine. Hayley has sisters, Courtney, 10, and Jasmine, three.
Hayley’s love for judo has seen her achieve eight gold medals and one silver medal in 2007 inter-club tournaments in Katherine, Jabiru and Darwin. Hayley has also received the award for the most improved Junior for 2006 and 2007. She has recently received her brown belt in judo with the Katherine Judo Club.
Little Athletics is another sport that Hayley loves. She achieved Age Champion in 2006 and 2007, with her favourite events being shot put, javelin and discus. Hayley has also represented Katherine Athletics Club in the 2007 NT Athletics Championships in Darwin, receiving one gold medal, one silver medal and one bronze medal for her efforts. Hayley has also achieved Age Champion for 2007 in swimming and athletics at her school, St Joseph’s College, Katherine. Hayley has just joined the Katherine Swimming Club and is due to go to her first swimming competition this month in Darwin.
Hayley comes from a very sporty background, with her Poppa, Douglas Kelly, being one of the Northern Territory’s legends in Aussie Rules, Rugby and basketball. I must say that Poppa Douglas Kelly and Nanna Jill Kelly support their three granddaughters at all their sporting activities that they are involved with in Katherine. They are always there as a great support for them. Hayley is very sporty, also like her uncle, Patrick Kelly. Hayley’s sporting idol is her cousin and mentor, Stevie Kelly, who also achieved Sportsperson of the Year award in 2005 - altogether a very athletic family and one of great achievements. As I said last night, Hayley is only nine years of age but she has certainly jam-packed quite a bit into her life already.
The 26th of January each year brings back a tide of mixed emotions for many people in Katherine when we reflect on the 1998 Australia Day floods in Katherine. For those of us who lived through the experience, we do not want to go through it again. Unfortunately, we are not in control of that, but we can but hope and pray that it does not happen again. This year marked the 10th anniversary and Katherine Regional Arts organised a wonderful commemorative evening to reflect on the flood.
Katherine Revisited, a reflection of the 10th anniversary of the 1998 Australia Day Flood, was held in the Katherine Cinema foyer and Cinema Caf beginning at 6.30 pm. The Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, opened the event in which there were 43 exhibits. These exhibits included photographs, items that were rescued, and artwork that depicted the flood. At 7.30 pm, we entered the cinema to watch a performance by local people called Watermark, which was choreographed by playwright, Alana Valentine. Alana’s notes in the program are as follows:
The local people who made up the cast of this moving production included Tess Nekrasov, Greg and Anica Schmidt, Cerise King, Natina Eggleton, Bruce Hocking, Phillip Morrow, Sue Jones, Toni Tapp Coutts, Val Wardley, Leith Davis, Rhian Wardley, Madeline Ingrames, Petrena Ariston, Shannon Coutts, Martin Wittenberu, Alice Beilby, Danielle Aquino, Patricia Elliott, and Cecilia Johns. The sound was organised by Jayne Nankivell.
The packed theatre thoroughly enjoyed the hard work that had gone into putting this evening together. It was very much appreciated by all of us who were privileged to be there. It certainly revived mixed emotions for many people. In addition to the members of the cast who made it such a success, I acknowledge Moira McCreesh, Teresa Cummings and Kerryn Taylor who did so much behind the scenes. Well done, Katherine Regional Arts.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I provide the Assembly with some information in regard to Australia Day Awards winners in my electorate. I was delighted this year to have the NT Achiever of the Year in my electorate in Batchelor; Mr Bruce Jones. Bruce has been described as having a genuine community spirit, a true Territorian, and a great achiever when nominated by Lisa Wain, the Coomalie Community Government Council, CEO. Bruce was placed in Dr Barnardo’s Homes in England at the age of five and came out to Australia by ship at the age of 10. He grew up in the Barnardo’s Home.
He came to the Territory in 1963 to shoot buffaloes commercially, and then worked as a driller’s offsider/truck driver/plant operator at the Rum Jungle Mine. He was employee and union rep at the mine, which had very high membership until the mine closed.
He represented the Northern Territory in hockey. He played darts, cricket, lawn bowls, served on the committee of the cricket club, and was captain and also vice captain for a time. He was a very active person. He rode competitively in Darwin, Katherine and the Mt Isa rodeos as a bull rider and, in 1966, was the Territory champion cowboy at the Katherine Rodeo. He certainly is an outgoing character.
Bruce is married to Ros, a local girl from the Meneling Station and they have lived happily in Batchelor for the last 31 years. More recently, they moved to a 20-acre block outside of Batchelor, and have lived there for nine years. Bruce and Ros have two daughters and five grandchildren.
Once the mine closed, he worked with the Department of Community Development, keeping the town and surrounding areas nice, neat and tidy. A mine ambulance was given to the town of Batchelor and Bruce became the inaugural volunteer for the newly-formed Batchelor Adelaide River District Ambulance Service. Approximately 10 years ago, he became a member of the Order of St John, where he was made a Serving Brother, and previously received a Priory Vote of Thanks for his volunteer work for St John Ambulance.
This year, Bruce received his 30-year service medal from Fire and Emergency Services, which is a great effort. He has been the Deputy Fire Captain for many years and now remains a volunteer with the local Fire and Emergency Services group. Bruce is also a Justice of the Peace.
In 1991, the Coomalie Community Government Council was formed and Bruce has been an elected member since its inception. He makes a huge effort on the council; between 2003 and 2006, he was president for a term. In 1999, he was awarded the Australia Day Citizen Award from the council. He is an active volunteer with the Clean Up Australia Day in the area of the Litchfield Park Road. He is always volunteering for the Australia Day Breakfast in his usual attire, which is Australia flag boxer shorts and shirt and cap.
Bruce took up a position with the Batchelor College in 1983, which then became the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, and is currently on long service leave and working from home. Bruce is a fantastic character and has given to that community for so long. It is well deserved that he be recognised for his achievements to not only Batchelor but to the Northern Territory.
The Citizen of the Year for the Coomalie area was Beryl Deveraux. Beryl has lived in the Coomalie region with her family since 1972. She is willing to lend a hand to her neighbours and friends and she is an icon for the local area. Six of Beryl’s seven children attended Adelaide River and Batchelor Area School and was always contributing to the local school fete and other fundraising events. Her contribution continues today by supporting her grandchildren.
In 1975, she began work in the kitchen of the Batchelor College as a cook before retiring in 1990. She has been an active member, for over 30 years, of the Rum Jungle Bowls Club as a competitive participant, and also held senior administrative positions at the club. She prepared smorgasbords of delicious food for social events and the tournaments that were held by the club. She successfully exhibited for over 30 years in the Top End shows in areas of cooking and craft. She was a runner-up in 2004 for Mother of the Year. She knits jumpers of Territory and Australian designs which she raffles to support her son, who is blind from an accident.
Congratulations to Beryl, she is a well-deserved winner.
Other award winners on Australia Day from the Batchelor/Adelaide River area included the Young Citizen of the Year, which was won by Damon Hunt. The Student Citizen Award was won by Jazlin McIntosh-Dunbar from Adelaide River Primary School and Melinda Roddick from the Batchelor Area School. Jazlin put on a great performance at the Adelaide River Christmas show last year at which I was the MC. Congratulations to her.
Young Sportsperson of the Year was won by three girls. They refuse to split up and they do all their events together. They are Sarah Roddick, Melinda Roddick and Sharna Mulhall. The male Sportsperson of the Year was Phil Maunder and the female Sportsperson of the Year was Rose Phillips. The Community Event of the Year was the fabulous Lingalonga Festival which grows from year to year. Unfortunately, they have not put a calendar out this year. There was the Bachelors in Batchelor the first year, then the Bacherloresses in Batchelor the second year. Unfortunately, we do not have a calendar this year but, hopefully, next year.
There were certificates of appreciation given to Paul Maccioni and Robert Northey who are local police officers in Batchelor and also to Col Wain, who is a volunteer with the council. He is the husband of Lisa Wain at the council. Col gives his time freely to play at community events as an entertainer. Jason Scott, who is also with the council as a recreation officer, received a certificate of appreciation. Jason is new in that role but he has certainly given his time outside of hours and done a fine job for the community.
Matthew Renshaw won the acknowledgement. He was selected to be on the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table and was also nominated for the NT Young Achiever Award. Matthew has done a great job with his work within the community and it is a great acknowledgment. I am sure he will do a great job for that region on the Youth Round Table.
The local Heroes of the Year for the Coomalie area were the firefighters from the Bush Fires Council who went to Victoria when the bushfires occurred there. I will mention their names because they did a fabulous effort, not only in their roles but they certainly served the Territory very well there. The other volunteer groups and even the professional firefighters were so impressed with the way these guys performed and their professional approach to firefighting. Congratulations to Bruce Jones, Larry Warner, Vic Fox, Greg Taylor, Fred Burns, Andrew Turner, John Whatley, Sue Lamb, Ted Murphy, Rob Moloney, Lee Humphris, Christine Corney and Kristina Lamb.
Moving on to more acknowledgements from Australia Day, at Pine Creek the Citizen of the Year was Gaye Lawrence. Gaye is a long-time member of the Pine Creek community. She has been on almost everything and I will list those in a second. She served on countless committees and has been the Secretary of the Pine Creek Primary School since 1989. Prior to that, she spent four years as a teacher’s assistant and four years as a part-time secretary at the school. She has a huge record of achievement and contribution to the Pine Creek community.
She has been the President of the National Trust of Pine Creek for 25 years; a National Trust Councillor for 10 years; a part-time librarian of Pine Creek Library for 25 years; President of the Pine Creek council for one term; Vice President of the Pine Creek Community Government Council for two terms; Vice President of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory for three years; parent member of Callistemon House Board of Management; Board member of Outback Art; member of the Women’s Advisory Council to the Chief Minister; the President and founding member of the Pine Creek Tourist Association; the Treasurer of the Isolated Children’s and Parents Association Northern Territory; Secretary of the Pine Creek School Committee for three years; Secretary and Treasurer of the Pine Creek Race Club for four years; President of the Territory Craft NT (Pine Creek Branch); and lastly, the Pine Creek correspondent for the Katherine Advertiser for two years.
She has done a huge amount of work. She has not, obviously, sat back; she has wanted to be involved in things. They are the groups which drive that community and keep that community spirit going. Gaye has also organised, taught and administered several art projects in town, one of which won the Eric Johnston Northern Territory Achiever Award in 1996. She was a driving force behind the first Goldrush and Didgeridoo Festival in 1996, the first Sports Challenge in 1997, and the first Pine Creek Art Prize in 2007. She is certainly a worthy recipient. Having been there on the day, everybody acknowledged her huge contribution to that community.
The Young Citizen of the Year was won by Christine Alangale for her contribution to the Pine Creek community. Christine often helps out at local events. She decorated the multi-resource centre by herself in preparation for the kids’ Christmas disco, and was there on the night helping supervise the kids and organise games. She has decorated and helped Santa distribute lolly bags at the disco, as well as cleaning up afterwards. She has volunteered at the Sports Challenge and is always willing to help at community events.
Christine attended Katherine High School and has gained experienced working with children at MacFarlane Primary School as part of her school’s Vocational Education Training program. Congratulations to Christine. She is a young lady with a great deal of promise, not only with Pine Creek but in the wider world.
The Pine Creek Community Event of the Year was won by the Biggest Morning Tea, which has raised more than $12 000 for cancer research over the last 10 years. That is a huge effort for a small community. The chief organiser for that is Amanda Denouel who has a dedicated team of volunteers and sponsors. This event has become one of Pine Creek’s biggest charity fundraisers. They do a lot of work down there and it is certainly a great acknowledgement for her.
The local Hero Awards went to Kate Bohning, Gary Brown, Aaron Stone and Sue Valentine. Sue is the CEO of the Pine Creek Council. She is the longest serving CEO of a local government council in the Northern Territory. All those award recipients are acknowledged tonight. They are great people, they give to their community and they make their community so much better for everybody who lives there, so congratulations again.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about two Centralians who have received the honour of being named Centralian of the Year and Young Centralian of the Year. For 2008, the Centralian of the Year was June Noble, and Tanika Richards won the Young Centralian of the Year. I would like to talk about them both, and separately.
June Noble has been a strong part of the Central Australian community since she arrived with her husband, Bob, in 1963. Over the last 44 years, June has been a constant contributor to the community, and anyone who lives in Alice Springs would know that. June has four children, two boys and two girls, and they are a lovely family. Andrew was born in 1967, Jennifer was born in 1968, Alistair was born in 1970, and Fiona was born in 1972. All of the Noble children were born and raised in Alice Springs. June’s eldest son, Andrew, lives in Victoria, Jennifer is a police officer based in Cairns, but both Alistair and Fiona continue to live and work in Alice Springs.
When the young bride, June, first came to Central Australia, she settled at Amoonguna, where she was in charge of the preschool. Andrew was born while June and Bob lived at Amoonguna, and the new family lived there for three years.
Upon moving to Alice Springs, June and Bob started a business called Noble the Plumber. They operated Noble the Plumber for 26 years and, during this time, Bob apprenticed both his sons who continue the plumbing tradition today.
June has been involved in Quota for 35 years and, during this time, she has been president, secretary and member of the board. I was saddened to see, in a recent article in the Centralian Advocate, that Quota has to close because they have been unable to expand their membership base. June should be recognised for the efforts she put in over many years.
June became involved in the Alice Springs Youth Centre in the late 1970s, and was awarded life membership of the Alice Springs Youth Centre. During her time at the youth centre, she was involved with management and operational aspects, and took an interest in all of the programs that the centre offered to the youth of Alice Springs. The constitution was restructured in 1992 to ensure the longevity of the centre, and to ensure that it could be better managed. Currently, the Alice Springs Youth Centre offers a strong boxing program, martial arts, gymnasium facilities and a skating rink.
June was actively involved in the Life Education Program and has seen tremendous outcomes with that program, but was disappointed when it lost its funding and ceased.
June resumed teaching in 1980 at the Rona Glynn Preschool, where she worked for 19 years until her retirement in 1999. June was also involved in the Northern Territory Council of Government Schools Organisation (NT COGSO), she was on the NT executive as the Alice Springs representative during the 1970s and 1980s, and participated in decisions for teaching appointments. June is now a life member of NT COGSO.
June was elected to the Alice Springs Town Council as an alderman, and served in that role from 1992 to 2000. She undertook two terms as alderman and, in her last year, served as Deputy Mayor. During her time on council, June was instrumental in the placement of the two ‘Welcome to Alice Springs’ signs north and south of the town, and lobbied hard to establish alfresco dining in the mall.
June officially retired from council in 2000 and has thoroughly enjoyed travelling nationally and internationally ever since. June has been a member of the Australia Day Committee since 1992. June has also been an official visitor to the Alice Springs gaol since 1992, where she meets with prisoners and reports to the Minister for Correctional Services on matters of concern. June sees her appointment as a representative as a real privilege, and thoroughly values the role she has undertaken and enjoys her regular visits to the prison.
However, there is more, and one can see that June Noble is a worthy recipient of the honour she received as a result of her long-standing and widespread involvement in the community.
June was involved with the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame for 15 years, since its inception in 1993. She attended the public meeting called to set up the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in February 1993. As member No 88, June joined the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in August 1993, she was a member of the interim committee which formed and incorporated the association, and has been a committee member since 1994. June was actively involved in Molly’s Bash, which she supported for 10 years, and that was organised by the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame. Today, June is the Vice President of the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame and a regular at the volunteer desk at the new Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame on Stuart Terrace in Alice Springs - and what a wonderful facility that is.
At June’s retirement from teaching in 1999, she had served 22 years in the Northern Territory government. Also in 1999, the International Year of Older Persons, June was awarded the Commonwealth Recognition Award for Senior Australians. In 2001, June won the Chief Minister’s Women’s Achievement Award. June was also an inaugural member of the Seniors Advisory Council established by the Chief Minister in 2003.
June always goes into bat for a good cause, and has served on the committee of the Alice Springs Art Foundation for over 10 years, currently in the role of Vice President. The Alice Springs Art Foundation runs the national biennial Alice Prize. The Alice Prize is a contemporary mixed media art prize with $15 000 for first prize, and a four-week residency in Alice Springs. Up to 300 entries are received for the Alice Prize, and they are preselected to about 60 entries, and those people are then asked to submit their art work. This year’s Alice Prize exhibition will be run at the Araluen Arts Centre in May 2008. I encourage all members of the Legislative Assembly, particularly those in the Top End, to come to that wonderful exhibition.
June Noble has been a large part of Central Australia for more than 20 years, and she is active in the community and widely known as a woman who will help out wherever needed. It really is the case that she is widely and warmly regarded. I am very pleased to know her. I, on behalf of all honourable members, wish her the very best for her future and heartily congratulate her on becoming the Centralian of the Year.
Tanika Richards was named the Young Centralian of the Year for 2008. Tanika was born in Alice Springs in September 1988, and has made it her home since then, although I believe she will shortly leave to pursue studies interstate.
From a very early age, Tanika showed an interest in music, and she started learning the piano when she was only three. Shortly after that, she commenced ballet lessons with the then Alice Springs Ballet School, now known as the Duprada Dance Company. At age four, Tanika joined the Alice Springs Junior Singers and worked through the choir levels, ending in cantori at nine years of age and, along the way, performing in numerous community events until its closure.
As a student of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College until 2003, and then of St Philip’s College until 2006, Tanika completed her Year 12 exams very successfully and has spent her gap year teaching music at Living Waters Primary School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, and St Philip’s College, as well as privately, sharing her love of music with students of all ages.
Tanika’s commitment to personal development in the arts culminated in 2006 as she completed her Associate Diploma in Music in Piano with the Australian Music Examinations Board exams. As the first person to do so from Alice Springs, this required Tanika to visit Adelaide for master classes from time to time. In 2005, Tanika was the first person in Alice Springs to complete her Suzuki Level 6 Graduation in Piano, playing from memory the Italian Concerto by Bach, whilst still at school completing Year 11 studies.
Over the years, Tanika has performed in numerous concerts such as the recitals sponsored by the Alice Springs Teachers’ Association, assembly concerts at St Philip’s College, and the Centralian Eisteddfod. Tanika has also performed at the Alice Springs Music Teachers’ Gala.
Tanika was one of the founding members of a flute ensemble called Flute Salad, which came together in 2002 and performed at community events until 2007. The group comprised students ranging in age and abilities. Tanika, as the most senior player, always nurtured and encouraged the younger, less experienced players, playing duets with them at concerts and performances to encourage them and build their confidence. As a member of Flute Salad and as its leader, Tanika has toured with the group to Canberra, Perth, and through South Australia, and was thrilled to be part of the launch of the group’s CD Fiesta Salsa in April 2007.
As an accomplished saxophonist, Tanika was invited to join the saxophone quartet called Saxsational in early 2004 and has been a valued member of the group since then.
As a valued member of Flute Salad, Saxsational and Flaming Geckos, which was a mixed instrument ensemble, Tanika has performed in many venues, from Parliament House in Canberra to Bundaleer Forrest, Glen Helen and at the Top End Folk Festival.
In December 2004, Tanika undertook a major community-based project for the Duprada Dance company forming the Duprada Music Ensemble. Tanika agreed to arrange the music composed by Chopin for the ballet, Les Sylphides, and brought together an ensemble to perform with the ballet company in a live performance in June 2005. Apart from the technical challenge that this presented, Tanika added to the challenge by including a number of young musicians who had no experience at this sort of performance. The inaugural Duprada Music Ensemble was such an extremely well-received performance that the project was repeated in 2007, this time for the ballet, Paquita.
Tanika has been responsible for arranging, directing and conducting the Suzuki Graduation Concert Ensemble each year, and has performed medleys from the Lion King, Christmas themes and, more recently in December, A Small World medley from the Disney movies.
Tanika is the leader of the Catholic Church Choir in which she sings and plays the piano, or accompanies the choir on flute. In a bid to encourage the other young woodwind players who form part of this group, she has arranged a number of pieces, such as The Prayer, From a Distance, When you Believe, and Panis Angelicus for the ensemble to perform during Sunday Mass.
Tanika won the Senior Music Scholarship at St Philip’s College Alice Springs for Years 11 and 12, taking out the music awards for 2004 and 2006 as well.
Academically, Tanika has always achieved honours at school each year, and was the recipient of the Middle School Research Award for 2004. She followed extended studies in both French and Music, and has completed her Year 12 exams in both subjects whilst in Year 11. She was also a Prefect at St Philip’s College for 2005 and 2006.
Tanika was also the recipient of the University of Adelaide’s AMEB Grade 7 and Grade 5 Flute Awards.
Tanika has just auditioned at the Australian National University and has been accepted to further her studies in music in 2008. She has also auditioned at the University of Adelaide’s Elder Conservatorium and is presently awaiting the outcome of that audition.
My heartfelt congratulations to Tanika Richards, a fine example of a young person from Alice Springs, and a very worthy recipient of the Young Centralian of the Year. I wish her well. It has always been a pleasure, in any event, to attend the St Philip’s and OLSH graduation nights. I have been there regularly for some years now, and Tanika’s name is always mentioned and she always received an array of awards, some of which I have mentioned tonight.
On behalf of all honourable members, I congratulate Tanika. I am sure that members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory join with me in congratulating her and wishing her the very best for the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the galleries of many visitors who are joining us for the ‘Sorry Day’ motion today. It is a great pleasure to have you here. I acknowledge people who have come from the Garden Point Association, the Croker Island Group, Retta Dixon, the Northern Territory Stolen Generation Committee and the Central Australian Stolen Generation Group.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Island Ark Project – Northern Quoll
Island Ark Project – Northern Quoll
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on the great work being done by our indigenous park rangers and indigenous landholders to ensure the conservation of threatened species across the Territory. The Territory has 203 threatened species of plants and animals, many of which inhabit the most remote parts of the Northern Territory. Our record of extinctions over the last 100 years has not been good, and none of us want to lose any more of the Territory’s wonderful wildlife species.
Indigenous Territorians have a particular interest in, and responsibility for, their lands and the plants and animals that live there. In recent years, we have seen strong collaboration between environmental scientists trained in western tradition and indigenous Territorians, particularly those involved in the indigenous ranger programs. The programs provide employment opportunities for about 400 people in many remote and disadvantaged communities and are achieving important conservation objectives.
Indigenous rangers bring to this conservation management very important skills and knowledge, often including an intricate knowledge of country and wildlife and, particularly, acute perception of their lands and its management. Managing threatened species involves intensive management of the species in predator-proof enclosures; translocation of highly threatened species either within the Territory, such as to offshore islands, or to other states; surveys and monitoring of specific threatened species; detailed studies of the ecology of particular species; development of management guidelines to improve the conservation status of threatened species; and on-the-ground management actions.
We have an invaluable natural heritage and a responsibility to all Territorians and future generations to protect and nurture that heritage. The conservation of these species is a challenge. There is little information available, making it harder to identify the best course of management. Scientists in my department provide much of the expertise for this management, but it is impossible for them to take the sole responsibility for management of all 203 threatened species - and they should not, for all members of our society can and should have some interest in the fate of our wildlife.
An example of great collaboration between indigenous landowners, ranger groups and scientists is seen in the management of the northern quoll. In 2003, a small cargo of mammalian refugees, 65 northern quolls, were translocated from the Territory mainland to two islands off north-east Arnhem Land. As we all know, northern quolls are perhaps the most susceptible of all native animals to the detrimental impact of cane toads. As a consequence, quolls have rapidly disappeared from most of their range across the Top End.
The traditional owners of two islands, Pobassoo and Astell, agreed to take care and responsibility of the quolls. Over the past four years, the traditional owners and the Gumurr Marthakal Rangers from Galiwinku, together with scientists, have monitored the progress of the quolls. It is a great collaboration to see skills swapping in training and sharing of long-term perspectives on environmental care and responsibility. The program has been remarkably successful. The 65 quolls love their island refuge and set to work assiduously to increase their numbers.
Today, there are 2000 quolls on the islands. Extinction has been forestalled and should, in the long term, a way be found to eliminate toads, we have quoll populations that we can restore to the Territory mainland.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is a positive move by the government to look at the removal of quolls from the mainland because, as you said, quolls do not seem to have any resistance to cane toads.
Their relocation is the good part of the story, I suppose. However, the other side is that the government had opportunities - which it actually recommended through one of its committees - to do more work on trying to reduce the effects of cane toads. I refer especially to a request by some of the indigenous people in the Cobourg Peninsula area to look at putting a fence across the Cobourg Peninsula to try to stop the invasion of cane toads into that area. That was a recommendation of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee at that time. It is a pity that the government did not try that. There was no attempt to do anything. It was a simple request by the indigenous people in that area to at least have a go at keeping one part of the mainland free of cane toads.
Unfortunately, we now have only areas offshore that are free of cane toads – and I am not sure that is accurate when it comes to Centre Island in the Gulf. However, we have not kept areas free of cane toads on the mainland. That was a great opportunity to do that.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I think it might be the first one you have given as the minister for Environment. Is that right? Yes.
There is no doubt that natural resources certainly offer opportunities for indigenous employment in remote communities. Indigenous people have a great understanding of the environment and the land; therefore, it is imperative that we work together with them and combine the expertise of the scientists to carry out research in those communities and in remote areas.
The member for Nelson talked about putting a fence across to stop the cane toads from getting there. I do not know how that would work. Having experience with cane toads in Katherine, I do not know much that can stop them, quite frankly. It would have been worth a try …
Mr Conlan: There are feral doves.
Mrs MILLER: … but I honestly do not know what can possibly stop them. They are quite determined creatures and, as you know …
Mr Conlan: Big problem, feral doves. Feral camels, minister. What about the camel problem?
Mrs MILLER: … they breed like I do not know what. I believe that they are even at Tennant Creek now. It is very interesting to have a debate on whether that may have stopped them. However, thank goodness the quolls are being protected and, hopefully, the indigenous rangers will be able to keep an eye out for them. I thank the minister for his report.
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their input into the report. Unfortunately, I did not pick up all the points that the member for Katherine was making because of the little noise that was going on up the back there. Good on you, members. I am not used to tuning in, but I promise I will not be distracted any more by those silly interjections ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KIELY: As we know, the cane toad problem is a national problem these days; it is cross-jurisdictional. It started in Queensland. Cane toads were introduced as a good idea at the time, and it was soon found out that they were a horror to the native fauna of the country. It has been an ongoing battle between landowners and communities to try to stop the spread of the toad. Well over a decade ago we knew they were coming across the border. They have been coming across through Borroloola, and Knott’s Crossing in Katherine is a hotspot.
Since this government came to office, we have spent over $1m on cane toad management. We are committed to trying to get rid of this worst of the invasive species we have at the moment. We have a report ongoing through the Environment committee on invasive species. I look forward to receiving that report.
Sport and Recreation –
Importance to Territorians
Importance to Territorians
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I recognise the wonderful job you have done of ensuring that many local people are here today for the historical occasion of the ‘Sorry Day’ motion.
Madam Speaker, the report that I am going to contribute will be of interest to many of the families here with us today. There is no doubt about the importance of sport and recreation to all Territorians. While we have a young population, we cannot pretend that, statistically, we have an overly healthy population. Sports benefits are both physical and social. Sport and recreation lies very much at the heart of the Territory’s laidback outdoor lifestyle.
In an era when Australia’s general fitness levels are poor and our obesity levels have climbed to such an extent that the problem is now described by health professionals as an epidemic, the government recognises the value of making sport and recreation accessible to as many Territorians as possible. When it comes to organised recreation, Territorians enjoy the highest participation rate per capita.
Our participation rates in organised sport are amongst the highest in the country. The Northern Territory government contributes the second-highest per capita funding in Australia to sport and recreation and, while we continue working to increase sport and recreation opportunities for Territorians, we are particularly conscious of the importance of sport and recreation for indigenous Territorians.
The Territory government has an Indigenous Sports Program. The primary objective of the program is to provide all indigenous Territorians with the opportunity to participate in some form of sport or active recreation. The program supports the employment of the community sport and recreation officers who play a vital role in the social fabric in so many bush communities. The Indigenous Sports Program is funded through the Australian Sports Commission, and a two-year agreement has been negotiated for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 financial years. The Australian Sports Commission provides just over $522 000 per year to support the employment of seven indigenous sports officers across the Northern Territory. This is a program with a long-term partnership between the Australian and Northern Territory governments. In addition, the Northern Territory government provides over $2.9m per year to provide sport and recreation opportunities for indigenous Territorians, plus additional sport for the Indigenous Sports Program. This allows community government councils to employ 58 sport and recreation officers, as well as supporting the wages of the indigenous sports program officers.
Closing the Gap funding of $4.5m has also been allocated to support sport and recreation programs from the 2007-08 to 2011-12 budgets to provide additional support for remote indigenous communities. Funding will focus on program development, facilities and increased performance of community sport and recreation officers in remote communities.
The Indigenous Sports Program is guided by a strategic plan. The principle objects of the Indigenous Sports Program are: to increase participation and provide sporting pathways for indigenous Territorians; look at participation opportunities in other sports, in addition to the common sports, for people with disabilities; and increased participation in support functions such as coaching, officiating and governance.
The Indigenous Sports Program is built on a core set of values which include family, respect, optimistic attitudes, positive values, inclusive environment, effective communication, respecting confidentiality, and integrity. As with so many initiatives for indigenous people, there are barriers. It is also acknowledged that we have to do more to improve infrastructure at times, and build people’s motivation. It is hard, though, for individuals to maintain motivation in the face of difficulties such as substance abuse and dysfunction.
The strategic direction for the Indigenous Sports Program acknowledges the program is confronted by funding challenges. As a government, we must work to overcome these challenges, because sport has the potential for so many positive outcomes amongst indigenous people.
There is no question about the value of the indigenous contribution to the Territory and the Territory lifestyle. The prodigious natural talent of indigenous athletes has been truly highlighted at the national level for many decades. In the AFL, Territory-born footballers have established themselves as household names Australia-wide, thanks to their natural athletic gifts and hard work and dedication. As a government, we are committed to providing the opportunities for those indigenous athletes with outstanding talent to have access to pathways that may take them to the elite level. The Indigenous Sports Program must also maintain its focus on building opportunities for participation for as many indigenous Territorians as possible.
Madam Speaker, I look forward, in my role as Sports minister, to continuing to develop and encourage indigenous sports activity, and to ensure that the Territory lifestyle continues to be a fantastic opportunity for every Australian.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Sport for his report. I hope the minister does continue to develop sport and sporting programs to the Northern Territory. Plenty of young men and women, particularly young indigenous men, are benefiting from the leadership programs in communities, particularly with the AFL. I know you talked about this before. Two minutes does not really do it much justice, but I agree and I hope to see these programs continue.
You mentioned obesity. It is a big problem right across the Northern Territory in our towns and remote communities. I believe there could be some revision in canteens. I know that is more an area for the Minister for Health. I did flag the traffic light program to address some of the childhood obesity problem, which is a successful program in the UK. No doubt, the Minister for Health has seen that. It highlights particular food groups; what is healthy and what is not.
There is a story on the back page of yesterday’s Centralian Advocate that I draw the minister’s attention to regarding the Imparja Cup - about which we both spoke glowingly yesterday - perhaps being in jeopardy. The minister might like to have a look at that story and see if he can address that. I thank the minister for his report, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the minister for his report. He had a chance to mention Hawthorn because one of our new recruits is an indigenous player from the North, young Rioli …
Mr Bonson: Champion!
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think he will be a champion.
Much of what you said, minister, applies to both indigenous and non-indigenous. The benefits of sport go right across cultures; it is important to all of us. The difficulty with many indigenous communities, as I mentioned yesterday, is adequate facilities. I am not sure you need to teach many kids skills in regard to football. You just need to give them a decent football field to play on.
I remember a photograph in the paper the other day of a young boy – I am not sure from which community – went surfing for the first time off the beach in Sydney. He had never been near the water, went straight onto a surfboard and can do all the things that most of us would take months to do - just like that, and he comes from the desert. There is a lot of natural skill out there. What we need to do is ensure that young people have the facilities and the pathways to achieve greater things. That is especially so with people living in remote communities.
Overall, we all know the benefits of sport. There is a connection also between antisocial behaviour and lack of sport. As well as sport providing health benefits, it also provides self-esteem, learning to grow up, accept responsibilities, teamwork and caring for others.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. There is much more we can do. Let us see where we go in the future.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the member for Greatorex’s comments about the Imparja Cup. I can assure the member for Greatorex – I know that he is representing Alice Springs and the interests of Alice Springs – that this government supports the Imparja Cup. I signed off on an extra $10 000 to ensure that indigenous teams from all over Australia could participate in the cricket match.
I also had a chance to talk to Mike Brown, the Chair of Cricket Australia, who just came back from Dubai negotiating with India, Pakistan, etcetera. One of the issues we announced yesterday was the money going into cricket in trying to get international cricket games to the Territory. We also had an opportunity to talk about the Imparja Cup. They see it as a fantastic vehicle to promote indigenous athletes, with the opportunity to one day wear the baggy green hat. He is very interested in going out to the bush and doing different things. I can assure the member that the Imparja Cup will happen.
Member for Nelson, I agree that facilities are a big issue, and that we need to invest in these communities. What we have seen today is a Prime Minister who has indicated a plan about investing in Aboriginal people to create a better future. I assure you that this government will continue to invest in the right areas of sport and recreation in those areas …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Alcohol Restrictions in the
Katherine Region
Katherine Region
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, the Katherine region has the highest per capita consumption of alcohol in the Territory: more than 20 litres of pure alcohol for every adult per year. The region has suffered unacceptably high levels of alcohol-related harm, antisocial behaviour, community disruption, and personal misery as a result. This government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse in the Katherine region and across the Territory through a range of initiatives aimed at supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction.
As you may be aware, in late 2007, the Licensing Commission declared Katherine as a dry town effective from 21 January 2008. A supply plan was developed to support this initiative.
The following new conditions for takeaway alcohol now apply to premises in Katherine, Mataranka, Victoria River and Pine Creek:
only light beer may be sold for on-premise consumption prior to midday;
takeaway sales only between 2 pm and 8 pm;
no cask wine or fortified wine sales in containers larger than 2 litres, with restricted hours and volume of takeaway sales of these products;
no takeaway sales to taxi drivers on duty;
no takeaway purchases to be kept on premises for later collection by customers;
camera surveillance to be installed in the alcohol service areas of licensed premises; and
all staff serving alcohol should hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate.
Early evidence suggests that these controls have already had a significant positive impact on the level of antisocial behaviour in the Katherine CBD.
In an attempt to further address the issue of systemic alcohol abuse, an electronic identification system, or ID system, for the purchase of takeaway alcohol will be installed in the coming weeks at targeted stores and public hotels in the Katherine region including Pine Creek, Mataranka and Victoria River Roadhouse. The ID system will also be installed in Alice Springs. The aim is to prevent people who are banned by court order from buying takeaway alcohol from these stores. The electronic ID system will also better ensure that local liquor restrictions such as one wine cask per person per day are complied with. It may be further used by licensees to comply with the current Australian government requirement to record any alcohol sales of $100 or more.
Every customer purchasing alcohol from one of these outlets will be required to first produce photo ID such as a driver’s licence, passport, proof-of-age card or proof-of-identity card. The ID will be scanned and matched against the database of people banned by court order. I believe this will be an effective tool in monitoring people on court orders that restrict their availability to alcohol such as alcohol court orders, relevant domestic violence orders, or bail conditions. It will also be used to facilitate compliance with licence conditions that limit the quantity of certain products such as cask wine and fortified wine.
Installation is scheduled to commence in mid-February 2008 in Alice Springs, and shortly thereafter in the Katherine region. Before going live, there will be an extensive communications and education campaign to inform the public of the need for an ID when purchasing takeaway alcohol.
These are serious steps but, unfortunately, they are absolutely necessary if we are serious about ensuring Katherine is a safe and friendly place to live, work and raise a family. Challenging the culture of alcohol consumption within the Territory will be a long-term proposition and we will not succeed with a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to ensure measures have the support of local communities and are designed with our community in mind. That is why I will be travelling to Katherine shortly to see firsthand how these measures are working and hear from locals about what else needs to be done.
The progress in Katherine that I have set out today is an important step in making the Territory a healthier, happier place for all Territorians. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to honourable members.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the report and the efforts of government to address a core problem. Why is it that there is such a thirst for alcohol in the Northern Territory? Why is it increasing? You only have to look at - and I pay my compliments to the good people of Groote Eylandt who spent three years working together to develop a model. They compromised, they had intensive negotiations, and I believe there were 13 different drafts. To the end they were together, and they owned that decision. That decision has been the template for application in different communities. I am very concerned that the successful end point for the Groote Eylandt community has been applied too quickly to other communities that have not gone through the extensive process of community consultation, therefore, owning the result.
I am aware of the concerns that are already arising in the Alice Springs and Katherine communities where there is the need to have the whole community go through the process as we have seen in Groote Eylandt. The end point of Groote Eylandt is to be applauded. It stands as an example. However, what sits behind that end point is extensive community consultation in which they were all participants. It was a difficult process, and you have cut to the chase too quickly in applying a reform without bringing the people with you to produce the effect that we want: to reduce the thirst for alcohol in our community.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, why does the minister not stand up and tell us the things he is doing to stop the alcohol flowing rather than just restrictions? Why do you think Aboriginal people come into town and get on the grog? They cannot drink in their own homes, in town camps or on communities. They are allowed to drink; it is our law. However, you have made no effort to make life on Aboriginal communities good enough that they do not want to drink. Where are the programs which ensure life is rich and rewarding, where there is education and employment on communities for Aboriginal people?
I have many Aboriginal friends and they should be allowed to drink. However, all you are doing is implementing restrictions, which is not achieving anything. There are still too many presentations at the Alice Springs Hospital from bashings and domestic violence. Why not think broader? Think about rehabilitation, remedial programs, and education. Let us ensure that we give opportunities for people to have input into. Look at your figures. Come to Alice Springs; I will take you to all the hot spots where they are drinking here, there and everywhere.
Even though you have the restrictions – the 2 km law, a dry town, restrictions on public housing - it is not working because we all know prohibition is not the answer; it is education, a good lifestyle and programs to ensure that people benefit from them.
Minister, next time you are in Alice Springs come with me and I will show you where all the people drink who are not supposed to drinking in a dry town or within the 2 km limit.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their contribution. This is a government that has taken many steps in relation to alcohol and the problems that alcohol cause …
Mr Conlan: The government has failed. You have failed in it.
Mr Mills: It is increasing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … within our community. I find it quite ironic that two representatives of the former CLP government who were not willing to take large steps in this regard are criticising the government. Yes, we recognise that restrictions are not the be-all and end-all. That is why we have Closing the Gap, where we are trying to address issues around Aboriginal disadvantage. We will continue to do that …
Mr Conlan: Wrapped up in legislation and ignore the real issue, minister.
Mr Mills: You prefer to gaol people.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, on the issue of consultation, I find it quite amazing that this would be said because there has been extensive consultation with Alice Springs and Katherine. In fact, the town councils of those particular towns asked for these measures to be introduced. There has been extensive consultation also through the Liquor Commission. I find it quite strange that the Leader of the Opposition would make this assertion.
Madam Speaker, we are a government that is serious about alcohol, restricting alcohol and solving problems around alcohol ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Apology to the Stolen Generations
Apology to the Stolen Generations
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move -
- Noting this Assembly has previously apologised to members of the Stolen Generations in October 2001,
That this Assembly welcomes and wholeheartedly endorses the federal government’s apology to the Stolen Generations.
Madam Speaker, I welcome everyone here today for what is an historic day in our country’s history. This is a day, given the coverage of the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, that will bring a lot of comfort and closure to what has been a tragic and very sorry chapter in our nation’s history.
On 21 October 2001, this Legislative Assembly passed a motion of apology to the Stolen Generations. The Northern Territory was the last state or territory jurisdiction to do so. This morning, the Commonwealth parliament, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, joined the rest of the nation in passing a national apology. On any reckoning, it is an historic moment in our national history. The significance of this moment in history is symbolised by its bipartisan support in the Commonwealth parliament.
We welcome the commitment by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, towards establishing a national commission in partnership with the federal opposition towards closing the gap - towards achieving measurable outcomes in the areas of housing, health and education for indigenous advancement. It is a commitment that all Territorians welcome. In particular, we welcome his commitment to indigenous children, the hope of the future for us all. It is a commitment which we will approach in the spirit of hope, as well as determination, to make a real change in closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage.
As I said in this place in October six years ago, saying sorry is about acknowledging the past, healing the wound, and moving on. The Territory and this Assembly have a great opportunity to move forward in many areas. Whilst everything we do in the Assembly is important, today’s motion, six years later, will probably have a greater emotional impact on some people’s lives than anything else we will do in this parliament.
Once again, may I, on behalf of this parliament, say sorry to the Stolen Generations and their families for the injustices visited on them over so many decades. Given the Commonwealth’s absolute role in the removal of Aboriginal children from their kin and country, the effects of the motion in Canberra will have an even greater impact on members of the Stolen Generations in the Northern Territory.
Last year, when there was a suggestion made to establish a national history curriculum, I immediately threw the Northern Territory’s hat into the ring, pushing for us to have a pivotal role in designing such a national curriculum. I emphasised the critical need for such a national history to incorporate the place of indigenous Australians in our history, both before and after European settlement.
The story of our Stolen Generations is a perfect case in point. The consequence of the removal of so many Aboriginal children under the Commonwealth Native Welfare Ordinance is part of the history of the Northern Territory. The role of members of the Stolen Generations in that history, and their role in contemporary community, social and political life in the Territory is integral to the Territory’s society.
The lives of every Aboriginal member of this Assembly have been affected directly or indirectly by this sorry chapter of our history. It is a history we must commemorate if we are to be true to ourselves as Territorians and Australians. To this end, I add to my call for Aboriginal history to be an integral part of the national history curriculum. The story of the Stolen Generations should be a specific focus of that national history. To do anything less would be to deny our nation the truth about ourselves.
In this parliament six years ago, I had the privilege of telling the remarkable story of a much loved Territorian, Hilda Muir – Aunty Hilda to many of us on this side of the House. Today, I recount part of another of those stories about a remarkable Territorian, Betty Fisher. I am grateful to her family for agreeing to her words being used this morning.
Betty was taken from her family from around Katherine in the 1930s and taken to Croker Island. This part of her life is about another kind of hardship and courage as the Japanese started bombing Darwin and Northern Australia. As Betty told it in 1989:
Croker Island was a beautiful place, good fishing, we had our own cattle and goats, and an airstrip there where the plane used to bring in the mail.
Then the war broke out. I was about 10 when it happened. All we knew was that the Japanese had bombed Darwin, and they’d been telling us if aeroplanes came over we had to run into the jungle. We were only young kids and frightened. We used to keep saying, ‘Oh, Japanese, Japanese coming’. We were scared but we didn’t even know what it meant.
We waited day by day for news of what we had to do next. And word came. We were lucky we had one of the mission luggers that came with our food, so we could go across to the mainland and get off at Oenpelli from the South Alligator. Before we left Croker, all the children had to pick up stones and make a big cross and paint it white so they could see it was a mission field, a mission station.
When we went across to Oenpelli, we didn’t know what was happening. We lost one child there in Oenpelli. From there we had that big walk. The Oenpelli mob lent us a horse and so the rest of us children had to walk 40-odd miles to some trucks that were supposed to come out and meet us from Pine Creek. All the kids went, maybe 100 kids. We had only one old ute that carried Mrs Adams, and she’d just had a newborn baby, plus they had to put in all our tucker and all our gear. So all the children had to walk many miles each day and then we had to camp. Then we’d start off the next day.
While we were on the track walking across the continent, I went to sleep under a tree and nearly got left behind. Every time we camped they used to count up the children; they found one was missing and that was me. So Mr Wale, one of the missionaries, came back on horseback. Luckily he found me because the grass was so tall - you know, spear grass. He found me lying under this tree and picked me up. The horse rump was that big and I couldn’t put my little short legs over and I was crying. I was frightened of the horse! I will never forget that.
Then we walked and walked until we met two or three trucks that came out from Pine Creek. From there they took us in army trucks to Alice Springs. And from Alice Springs we were sent to a place on the south coast of New South Wales called Otford.
- In 1946, on the prestigious radio show Australia’s Amateur Hour, a young girl from Croker Island in the Northern Territory named Betty Fisher became an overnight sensation. With her beautiful singing voice equal to any Hollywood starlet, Betty Fisher took Australia by storm. Thousands of gestures of praise and support came pouring in from all over Australia from people who wanted to vote and help in any way to promote and escalate in any way Betty Fisher’s inevitable rise to stardom.
It was not to happen. Mission authorities refused to allow her to pursue a musical career and sent her back to Croker. However, Betty was to inspire a new generation of Territorians. Ali Mills went on:
- Everyone who knew her well lovingly referred to her as Aunty Betty because of her amazing voice, charisma and fun loving spirit. In her older years, Aunty Betty is recorded as saying that she always preferred to sing for people she knew … that being down south wasn’t the same as being with her Darwin friends, family, and sitting on her country … although in one interview with her, she says how sad she was that she never had a chance at fame … that when the opportunities came they were taken from her because of a decision made by her guardians at the mission. Betty’s history and story is here for us, the new generation, to experience.
Betty Fisher’s story is but one of hundreds, but symbolic of lost opportunities, courage, and strength in getting on with life. The history of the Stolen Generations is part of the Territory’s history, part of our national history. It is a story that we should honour and commemorate and learn from. It is a story that all our children should share.
The Northern Territory’s Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage policy looks to the long term, to an intergenerational approach to overcoming many decades of neglect and mismanagement. For this government, Closing the Gap is not rhetoric. It is not just a slogan; it is a program that is geared to achieving real results. It is an approach that has adopted 5-, 10- and 20-year targets that are not just realisable, but are critical if we are to achieve the outcomes we desire. The Territory’s Closing the Gap policy covers the following key areas:
safety, in which child protection measures are to be paramount, through a combination of increased resources, legislative change and a change in the culture of how services are delivered; increased policing presence throughout our remote area policing strategy; the establishment of community justice and offender rehabilitation; a concerted and integrated approach to preventing family violence; and an absolute commitment to tackling the ravages of alcohol and substance abuse;
education, which we all know is critical. In partnership with the Commonwealth, we aim to expand educational opportunities for all Territory kids. From increased resources to preschool and through to expanding opportunities, we have already established NTCE graduation from remote schools, building on this government’s achievements in rolling out secondary education to remote schools, a far cry from the decades of neglect in the past;
health, in which early childhood health needs are met through an holistic approach to early childhood services and maternal health, and in which primary health care continues to be expanded with an emphasis on chronic disease prevention;
housing, which, in a continuing partnership with the Commonwealth, we embark on a $1bn housing program to build new houses and upgrade houses in remote communities, townships and town camps right across the Northern Territory over the next few years; and
jobs, including transition from CDEP to full-time paid employment, especially in the health and education sectors on one hand and, importantly, through support to indigenous economic development on the other - especially through the massive housing program we are about to embark on right across the Northern Territory.
Today’s historic event in Canberra is a call for national unity over indigenous affairs. It is one that this government is determined to commit to. In saying sorry today, we are saying there must be hope for the future if we are to mature as a nation. That surely is something we can all work towards.
The Prime Minister today, at the end of what was an historic speech in the history of this country said and called for, ‘a new chapter in the history of this great land Australia’. With the federal parliament making this apology and saying sorry today to the Stolen Generations, I believe a new chapter of reconciliation will occur. I commit my government to playing our part.
Madam Speaker, it is a new beginning but it is not an end point. Let us all work together for a better future. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge those who have gathered to witness this occasion. I also acknowledge that every one of you carries a family story that reaches far back. Every one of us in this Chamber also carry our own family stories to this place right here and now. Nationally, thoughts and hearts are turned towards an issue that has troubled this nation for too long. It requires a different attitude, a different approach, and extraordinary honesty if we are to find the means to walk together. Unless we find the point of agreement, we are unable to walk together.
This is the time to reflect on past mistreatment. It is a time where we must look at both the past and the present and every point in between, and say sorry. I have seen the pain that has been borne with dignity, the faces of the young and the old, particularly the older ladies. I have seen the anger of the youth fuelled by despair and disconnection. I am prepared to say sorry but, more importantly, I am prepared to put my hand out as a private citizen, as an individual, as a person, as a family man, and help. I am sorry.
It is impossible to unravel and to walk back to the years when decisions were made, and dissect that time with the tools of today. It is impossible to go back honestly and dissect that time when decisions were made and children were taken from families, but what we can do is to gauge the pain today and to respond to that and endeavour to weave a new story. Whether yesterday’s motive or intent is judged good or bad is irrelevant; it is the effect on the lives today.
It is not just those who have the history of being stolen. For those of us who walk as Australians with our own stories, we cross over - our paths are one path. I carry in my own experiences, friendships and relationships that same pain because I am an Australian, a fellow citizen of this ancient land. I truly sense the weight of this moment as the nation reflects and responds. I also bear the additional and more contemporary weight of a citizen of the Northern Territory. We are all here not by accident; this is our place, our time, our opportunity to respond. We are, together, citizens of an ancient land. As one people, we are required to renew our efforts to reconcile past wrongs and cut a new path. That is the challenge.
The Prime Minister’s statement today, joined by the Leader of the Opposition, opened with the call to reflect upon those past mistreatments of Aboriginal Australians. It is critical, though, that that reflection leads to practical action. The honesty of this reflection must cut deep. It then must transfer to meaningful action. If it is without the meaningful action, there will be no antidote to the bitter poison of tokenism. I do not want to see any further humiliation. I do not want to see any more life fed into monuments that mark a point in time and, then, we move on with a sense of euphoria.
One thing I have learnt from my indigenous Australian friends whom I have travelled part of my journey with, is their ability to see things that I could not see. As a young man, when I was only 12, my friend Johnny was 16. He could see emu tracks in the gravel. All I could see was the gravel. Reggie could point out the kangaroo under the tree in the distance, and all I could see was the tree. Later on, I learnt that while my peers listened to words, my Aboriginal friends could read the story behind the words. They read the person who was speaking.
It is for this very reason that I come to this moment with great trepidation. I know that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. This is a delicate matter and to proceed is going to take an extraordinary resolve beyond words; to be able to discern the story behind the words - the motives and the intents - which will see a courageous resolve.
It is truly sobering to admit that this parliament said sorry nearly seven years ago. However, since then, we have had an intervention. Between the time of saying sorry and the intervention, there was much turmoil and travail even in this parliament. In the midst of that point between the apology in this parliament and the intervention, many debates were conducted.
One call was made in this parliament - a call of challenge. It is a personal challenge, not a challenge of ideology or ideas, or competing views of history. It is a personal challenge which is this: if we are unable to put aside personal, political and ideological differences to transcend, then we have no hope of effecting positive change to those we are concerned about. If we cannot transcend and put those things in their right place and find a new place to walk forward, we are only going through the motions with the hope that something may happen. It is personal; that is why the call was made in this parliament in 2006, 18 months ago. That challenge or proposition, which would result in the formation of a truly bipartisan committee to work together to find a new path through, was put and was rejected.
In today’s new spirit of cooperation, reconciliation, and understanding of the problems of the past which transcends party lines, regarding something which effects all of our histories, I put that challenge once again; that, in this Chamber, the 25 members could find a new place to stand and work together on this single issue - to find a new path through. Forget the whipping boys of the past, forget the blame, put that in another place and find a new way forward and a new way of conducting business in this Chamber on this issue. If we cannot achieve that, this is another motion, this is another expression that may make us feel buoyant for a time but, in the heat of day, in the heat of battle, things will remain the same. That is my challenge. Our ability to meet the challenge of reconciliation is only achieved through relationships: person to person, Australian to Australian, indigenous to non-indigenous, indigenous to indigenous, non-indigenous to non-indigenous, one to another.
I am pleased that the Chief Minister has given reference to the need for the history to be placed more prominently within our curriculum. That is supported. I ask the Chief Minister and members to consider another step, which I believe is necessary, and that is, language. Language holds the key to culture. To understand another person cannot be gained without knowledge of the language. There is a need for more indigenous languages to be spoken in our schools. For those public servants who work in the field, there needs to be not only an investment in programs, but an investment in training, cross-cultural training and language training, so that we can truly and practically build that bridge.
There has been much talk in the past of bilingual education. That is a practical step forward; it shows some respect for the host language and builds the bridge of understanding. I am embarrassed at times that I can speak the language of my neighbour in Indonesia, but I cannot speak the language of anyone here in the Northern Territory. I do not know whether I can say ‘hello’. I can say one word; where I come from in Western Australia there are some. I know the secret and the power of language. That is the challenge for us to contend with. That is beyond the euphoria of today: to take up that challenge, to learn another language and to walk in the shoes of another. That is when we get the real fuel, the real power to make a go of this, and to go the next step.
There have been so many policies, so many words spoken on both sides of the House, both sides of the political divide. There have been many assurances and promises made, hopes raised and trashed. We all need to look honestly into the face of national shame and despair and draw the resolve for courageous action. While politics and ideology influences actions to rectify past wrongs, we are doomed to repeat the past if we are unable to transcend personal and political differences. The actions of combined Labor and Liberal governments, Premiers and Chief Ministers, Education ministers, Health ministers, even Aboriginal leaders, have led us to the place we stand today. All of us are involved in this.
I stand painfully aware that today could be just another event that will be judged in similar terms to the judgment we make on actions of the past. I do not want that to occur. That is why I put my hand out for practical action accompanying this motion. I do not want this to be judged in the future in the same terms we are judging the past today.
I know that I speak in the presence of those who are personally familiar with the effect of past wrongs, and painfully bear that burden. I hope, on your behalf, that the story behind these words in this Chamber today will lead to a change. I will say again: it is up to each of us personally to translate the sentiment of today into action so that together we can write that next chapter and, together, we can write a new story for our children’s children. May they be sitting in this parliament in 25 years time and hearing a new story. I support the motion.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia Nation, the traditional owners of the land on which we speak, the members of the Stolen Generations here with us today, and family and friends to observe this historic occasion as we support the Prime Minister and the Australian parliament for their apology, saying sorry, to the Stolen Generations.
I support the motion in support of Prime Minister Rudd’s Stolen Generations apology earlier this morning.
In October 2001, I stood here contributing to the debate on the Northern Territory government’s own apology to the Stolen Generations. On that day, I acknowledged members of the Stolen Generations who had travelled from Tennant Creek and other parts of the Barkly to witness that important event. Some of those people are with us here again today, and I acknowledge you. However, there are some people who are not here today. I pay tribute to the family and friends of those people who are not with us today, as I do to all members of the Stolen Generations who are not with us today.
I remind us all that, for many families, the removal of children occurred across more than one generation. It was not a one-off event. The effects have been felt and continue to be felt by the descendants of the children taken from their families who grew up in various institutions across the country.
My family is one such family, with my own mother a resident of the Emerald River Mission established solely for the care of a particular category of people – half-castes - from 1920 to the early 1930s. Keith Cole, in his book Aborigines of Arnhem Land, recorded how Emerald River was established and its purpose:
- Here they, half-castes, would have the opportunity of being trained in isolation to take their place in western society.
Later, another generation of my family was affected. My elder brother, Charlie, found himself collected about 1943 or 1944 by a Native Affairs officer to be raised away from his family at Moola Bulla Station, an institution near Halls Creek in Western Australia that was to be the home of many children removed from their families across the Kimberleys.
Many indigenous families in the Northern Territory have similar stories to tell: a shared heritage unasked for; the direct result of the Australian government’s policymakers’ own determination of what was best for us over time.
The thinking of these times is recorded by Charles Abbott, Administrator of the Northern Territory for the period 1937 to 1946, in his book The Australian Frontier Province. Abbott described the half-caste problem, as he called it:
- Increasing numbers of children were born of mixed parentage.
- Of course, it is a tragedy when the child discovers that his or her mother was a lubra.
This history of removal and isolation from families, the loss and hurt it created across generations, needs to be acknowledged and understood as part of our shared history as Australians.
I thank Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his parliamentary colleagues for their leadership in acknowledging the traumatic effects of these Australian government policies and for their conviction in saying sorry.
The Prime Minister has also reminded us of the heavy responsibility that all governments have in determining and implementing policies that directly impact on families and affect their emotional, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
However, I now turn to the future. The Prime Minister, in his apology, has highlighted the determination of his government to create a future where we harness the determination of all Australians – indigenous and non-indigenous - to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement, and economic opportunity. I applaud that vision and commit to working as hard as I can as a member of this parliament to achieve that end. Let us acknowledge our history and understand the effects of past Commonwealth government policies on the Stolen Generations and their families. Let us learn from that experience and accept the challenges that this leaves us with. No more should we, through government decision-making, demean the rights and dignity of our citizens. We move on from this history, but let us never forget our obligation to ensure and maintain these basic human rights of dignity, comfort in knowing where you come from, and ensuring the rights enjoyed by all our citizens.
Madam Speaker, I dedicate this speech to all members of the Stolen Generations, but also to my mother, Dorcas, and to my brother, Charlie.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia traditional owners of this country. Today is the day of history. All of us here today know in our hearts the apology to the Stolen Generations has been a long time coming. The Prime Minister, Hon Kevin Rudd, today signalled a new beginning in relations between the first Australians and those who came later. It inspired me about the future.
What happened under successive governments hurt countless thousands of people, and that pain is still being endured by Aboriginal families from here in the Top End all the way to Tasmania. The representatives of many of the Territory families affected by those misguided government policies are here today to mark the significance of what occurred in Canberra early this morning. I acknowledge the strength of the people like those around us today for they have shown immense fortitude in the face of the indifference of successive Australian state and Territory governments over the years.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the audience and people reading this at a later date will forgive me if I do not mention their family’s name. It is appropriate to mention the names of people I know have been affected in any way:
Ah Chee, Ah Kit, Ah Sam, Bell, Bennett, Berto, Braun, Bray, Brogan, Brown, Burnley, Cahill, Calma, Cassidy, Clayton, Cusack, Croft, Croker, Daly, Ellis, Fejo, Hanson, Hayes, Heenan, Hopkins, Hunter, Kelly, King, Kruger, Laughton, Liddle, Liddy, Long, Lyons, Madden, Mathews, McGuiness, McLean, McMasters, McNamee, Mills, Mummery, Nicholls, Parfitt, Pearce, Peckham, Price, Randall, Read, Roberts, Ruddick, Ross, Smith, Scrymgour, Stanislaus, Stokes, Talbot, Tilmouth, Tomlins, Wauchope, Whiting, Wilson, Woodroffe, and Young.
Allan, Allay, Althouse, Anderson, Austral, Baban, Baxter, Benger, Bower, Bright, Briston, Bunn, Burke, Burnette, Campbell, Cardona, Cassidy, Clancey, Clarke, Cole, Collinson, Conroy, Corrie, Crosby, Cubillo, Cummings, Davis, Dean, Debush, Devery, Douglas, Friel, Frith, Gaston, Grant, Hagen, Hampton, Hanson, Harris, Hayes, Haywood, Henwood, Hewitt, Hill, Hoskins, Johnson, Jackson, Jones,-Noels, Kurnoth, Lardey, Lowe, McCarthy, Mackenzie, McLennan, McNee, Morecroft, Morecrome, Neeve, Newcastle, Nicaloff, Palmer, Parnell, Patterson, Paul, Pierce, Pillpot, Pocock, Raymond, Risk, Rose, Rotumah-Williams, Rusca, Ryan, Sariago, Shepherd, Sing, Swan, Thompson, Tilmouth, Walker, Walker-McClennan, Wauchope, Wesley, White, and Williams.
Bailey, Baird, Bennett, Bonson, Burke, Burns, Bush, Butler, Chisholm, Collins, Cooper, Costa, Cubillo, Cusack, Cussens, De Santis, Donald, Dunn, Fry, Gardiner, Grant, Greddon, Henry, Huddleson, Jeffrey, Leach, Lemon, Lolias, Lorenzo, Macauley, Madrill, Matsumoto, McGorm, McGuinness, McKee, McClennan, Morcom, Muggleton, Muir, Mulholland, Murphy, Parry, Patterson, Peckham, Pederson, Perkins, Rioli, Roberts, Ross, Scanlon, Shields, Stott, Stroud, Summers, Thompson, Tyson, Vigona, Wallace, Waters, Watkins and Young.
There are too many to mention, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, the words I would like to say I cannot.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I do not know how strong I will be. It is a special day and a sad day. I acknowledge the Larrakia people and traditional owners of this country and the Stolen Generations of today and of the past.
Today is an historic day for this parliament, and I speak in support of this motion regarding the national apology made today by the Prime Minister on behalf of the federal parliament to members of the Stolen Generations.
We stand on the threshold of a new chapter in Australia’s national story. At last, after years of contention, we have acknowledged one of the most distressing aspects of our past. A dark, secret shadow passes from us. We have the chance to move forward, secure in the knowledge that we can place and understand these events.
Apology and forgiveness presents us with the opening to forge a new national compact and build an Australia where all people are treated as citizens with equal rights. Those rights include good health, which allows the enjoyment of a full life, with education which opens the door to freedom of the mind, and good opportunities to participate in all the benefits of modern society.
The apology carries with it a strong desire to build stronger indigenous societies in remote and regional Australia. As the representative for one of the largest bush electorates in the nation - an electorate that has given Australia a wealth of art, dance, and traditional wisdom - I welcome this new day and hope with all my heart that the federal government and this government can work together to overcome disadvantage in remote Aboriginal Australia.
It is right and good to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, when policies, no matter how well intentioned in some cases, served to undermine and even to threaten the survival of Aboriginal civilisation. Equally, we should guard against failing or pursuing policies that have similar unintended consequences today.
The Prime Minister has often spoken of this wish to move forward and reduce the 17-year gap in mortality rates between mainstream and indigenous Australia. As all of us in this Chamber know well, that gap is much greater if we speak of the difference in mortality rates between remote communities and the capital cities of the south. If we do not undertake concerted action now - action deep and more far-reaching than any proposals we have yet seen or implemented - we will be dealing, not with the effects of the Stolen Generations in the past, but with a lost generation in the present, all across the bush. There is a gap of people spanned across the deserts and the remote north who need our help, our understanding and, above all, our action.
It is time for us to redouble our efforts on their behalf, to turn our thoughts to their future and their wellbeing. We should not rest easy until we have ensured the best medical and educational facilities for these citizens of our remote societies and given them the chance to thrive in a nation where fairness is seen on the ground as often as it is placed in speech.
We mark a happy day today; a day of understanding and concord. However, we have urgent work to do before we can stand together and look each other in the eye and claim that we have achieved equality of opportunity for all Australians, regardless of their race, background or place of residence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today certainly is an historic occasion for the nation. It is a new phase, a new chapter in our history. It is something that we eventually have had to come to grips with otherwise we would never go forward. I congratulate the Commonwealth government for bringing forward this apology. I believe it is something that the nation had to go through to move on.
About six years ago, we also debated this issue in our parliament. At that time, I spoke from the heart; it was something very personal to me. I will not repeat what was said because I felt that that was the time and the place to say that and, to repeat all of what I said, I believe, would not give service to what I said at that time.
I had a slightly different view from both the Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party at that time. I felt it was important that we did apologise to the Stolen Generations, but that we also had to be careful that we did not just isolate one group of people for that apology, when there were others at that time who also, perhaps, deserved an apology.
When I was young, I remember there were many unmarried women who, by coercion you might say, lost their children. Their children were given over to married couples. It was a phase in our society, in our life, where that seemed to be the solution to what we saw as a problem. It was the same with the Stolen Generations; we saw this as a solution to what we saw as a problem. There were even instances where children were put on boats from Britain after the war and sent to Australia with no idea whether they had any parents. So, there was a part of our history which is important, which deals with the Stolen Generations, but also deals with other significant facts that we should not ignore in this debate. As I said before, sorrow has no racial boundaries; all mothers despair the loss of their children, no matter the circumstances.
Regardless of the past and the problems we had, we should also recognise that there were people who did try their best, for better or worse, to help Aboriginal people. To some extent, when you are looking at this issue, it is not simply a black and white issue - and I do not put that in a silly context - it is a complex issue. We speak from the year 2008, when we are looking at issues of the past.
I wonder whether this is also an opportunity for us, as a nation, to reflect on something a little broader. Maybe we should have reflected on what changes the coming of European settlement has made to the lives of Aboriginal people. When one thinks of the intervention process, one can only feel there have not always been many positives. We - and I am referring to my race - sometimes with our superior Anglo-Saxon mentality, have sometimes had little regard for Aboriginal people because they were black and lived a different way to us. So, we squatted on their land and kicked them off to replace them with sheep and cows. We introduced alcohol and, more recently, drugs and pornography. Without land, many ended up on small parcels of land or on the fringes of townships, and we know the consequences of that.
Of course, there are many Aboriginal people today who are leaders in our society. More people are aware of the Aboriginal issues through the arts, sport and politics. I can mention with pride that, in the art field, my niece won the Telstra Award this year for the most popular piece of art which was about the Last Canoe. Her name is Kerry McCarthy. She wrote about her grandfather when he decided that he would bring all his children in from the Channel Point/Wadjigan area; that he would take his canoe that he had used for many years - he used to make canoes - and push it out to sea and then take all the children to Delissaville for school. It was like a breaking of the past for the future. He pushed it out and it came back again, so he walked out as far as he could go until the water was up to his neck and pushed it out again. That was the story that Kerry showed in her painting. There are many other people. Our Aboriginal art industry is so well renowned throughout the world and that is important.
Regarding people in sport, the member for Millner just mentioned a list of people. I reckon half of that list of people you would see in football teams, and in Rugby League teams, in the Darwin area. Their contribution has been great.
In politics, we have members of parliament - regardless of whether we always agree – who are Aboriginal. I am proud to stand in a parliament where there are Aboriginal people involved in the political system of the Northern Territory. It is wonderful. We have Aboriginal people who are making a positive contribution to our nation.
However, when you see the enormous problems we have with drugs and alcohol addiction, domestic violence, poor housing, low literacy and numeracy, little opportunity for real employment, and sexual abuse, you have to ask: did we, as a nation, leave this as our legacy to the original people? For that, I also say sorry.
I welcome the statement by the Commonwealth. We cannot ignore the past, but we need to continue to move forward, doing our best as a nation, to ensure that when we talk about how Aboriginal people are accepted in their own country, it is something we should not be ashamed of but something we should be proud of.
The Prime Minister, in his speech, also spoke about a new beginning and a new future. I also support the Prime Minister with that statement.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Larrakia people on whose land we have come together, in particular the families of the Stolen Generations who are here from families across the Northern Territory, and Nanna Hilda Muir and Nanna Muki and all the family with the recognition of the Yanyuwa and Garawa people from the Gulf of Carpentaria, and the history of Nanna Hilda Muir.
Today is an incredibly significant day for the people of Australia. It is an honour to stand here as the member for Arnhem and be a part of this parliament which already acknowledged, as the Chief Minister said, and made an apology to the Stolen Generations in 2001. It is certainly an honour to be a part of this parliament and the Labor government which saw this as something that was necessary in the Northern Territory; to acknowledge the pain and the suffering of members of the Stolen Generations and to acknowledge the history of the Northern Territory in the very first parliamentary sittings of the Labor government.
It is now an even greater honour to know that the first duty of the Labor government under the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Canberra parliament, has been to bring together all Australians to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the Aboriginal people of this nation - the suffering that has endured for many decades and continues on in the hearts of those who are here today.
I have spent a lot of time with my own family, and also with people in Arnhem Land, trying to understand their story and their history. I would like to reflect on what is significant about today. I have listened to members of the House and heard them talk about their own feelings. I heard the member for Blain talk about the need for this motion and this day to be more than just about words.
I would like to put this thought out there to colleagues in this Assembly, but also to every Australian: there comes a time in your life, in all our lives, where we must stop for a moment to reflect and think about that which makes us who we are, about where we have come from, and about where we are going. Today, on this most wonderful day in the history of our country, this nation is doing just that. All Australians are doing just that, because this one act in the parliament of this country acknowledges that the story of the Stolen Generations is real, as are all the stories of the people who have suffered under previous Commonwealth policies; that the pain is real; that the misunderstanding is very real; and that the constant denial is very real.
Today, our parliament, the people’s parliament in Canberra, has come together and said: ‘Yes, this happened to Aboriginal people in this country’. Whatever the intent, the pain that was endured and still endured is very real. It cannot be dressed up any more. It cannot be put aside and people told that the pain they experienced and the suffering they endured and the loss of their family was good for them. That is no longer the way it is going to be from this day forward. That is because we have had a courageous leader in Kevin Rudd – a courageous leader who acknowledged the pain and suffering that should have been acknowledged so very long ago.
The Bringing Them Home report is 11 years old. It is a report which tells the lives of so many Aboriginal Australians who stood before an inquiry revealing every ounce of their life story, for their country to read and to hear - 11 years ago. I say to the Prime Minister, not just as the member for Arnhem but as a Yanyuwa woman from Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria: thank you, Kevin Rudd, for having the courage. Thank you for having the courage to put in front of every Australian in this country what has been denied to Aboriginal people in this country; that is, their story.
Today is more than just a symbolic act; it hits at the heart and soul of our nation, of our beautiful country that we all call home. When I think about the stories, I think especially of Lorna Cubillo and of the late Peter Gunner, and how they fought in the Federal Court in the Northern Territory for just some sense of acknowledgement, to be understood, and to be respected for their stories. On that day when the judgment came down that they had lost, they felt an even greater disappointment, and a much more public sadness and, in some respects, a sense of humiliation because they had revealed their stories in the hope that some good would have come from it.
I say to Lorna especially, because I have never forgotten that day as just one of the many days when I have listened to the stories of many of our families: your story lives on. You know why, you mob? Your story lives on because the other important thing about today is that we have survived. We have survived, you mob! No matter the policies of the past, no matter the intent behind those policies, we are here; we are still talking. We have survived and your stories live on. They live on in your hearts and in the hearts of those who come behind you.
Today is that turning point. Today is the acknowledgement of all Australians that here is a part of our history that we can no longer deny, forget, or put to one side and say: ‘Just get on with it, do not worry about it’. That day is here for you.
I say to each one of you - to you, Nanna Hilda - I hope and pray that today is a day that fills our hearts with immeasurable joy and profound relief, to ease the pain of such disappointment, great sadness, and the absolute sorrow of the separation from your family and your people; that today will really begin to heal the heart from its bitter and sorrowful and, no doubt, very lonely journey. Today can be that day.
It was a journey where many Aboriginal Australians have felt misunderstood, denied, and forgotten in their struggle to endure and to be respected for the people they are; to create their own lives and lives for their children, to feel proud of who they are. You have survived! You will continue to survive, and your stories will continue to survive.
Today is your day, you mob! Today is your day. Embrace it, hold onto it and soak up the warmth of the goodwill, the love and the laughter that surrounds you on this day, because this day is your day. It is a day for all Australians to stop, to reflect, to think about who we are, where we have come from, and to ensure that where we are going, we go together. The hearts of all Australians right across this wonderful country - they now know your story. Now, perhaps, you will no longer be misunderstood and denied your story and, perhaps, no longer be lonely any more.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Barbara, that was a wonderful story. Why do I have tears in my eyes? Why do you have tears in your eyes? You should be happy. This should be a day of celebration, shouldn’t it? At last you have the federal government recognising your history.
That is what we must not forget. Your memories are always there - your memories of your loved ones are always in your heart - but there are times when you can say, let us move on. I thank the people in this House who have contributed in such a way that they have brought out their heart and soul. The member for Arnhem has done that.
This is a day when the Territory government should be proud also, because it now has the opportunity to work with the federal government to help ease the disadvantage that has occurred in the Territory for so long. There is no doubt that history has shown that Aboriginal families did suffer because of the policies of the day. We cannot change that, but we know it happened and we are recognising that. Even though the past will always remain - and it is a great idea to ensure that we have that history - we need to move on.
Do you remember when you where a little kid and you did something wrong and your mum or dad said to you: ‘Say sorry.’? You said sorry to whoever you had hurt, and it made everyone feel better. It is such a little word, but it means so much to people when they hear it. I believe the federal government has done something proud today for all Australia in saying just that little word.
I hope this motion by the federal government brings closure to many of the indigenous people who have suffered over many years. I hope it helps you, in your stories, to find comfort in what has been said. We know it may not appease all people. However, I believe the majority of Australians are saying to you: ‘Yes, it is about time, and we are happy that the federal government has done this. We will stand behind the Territory government when they seek assistance from the federal government to ensure that we benefit from this’.
I say to all the Aboriginal people who are here and throughout the Territory: be involved, be part of the future. Rejoice in what you have and ensure that you take on what the federal government is now offering. It is important that we all work together now to get the best outcome and look to the future. The Territory is a wonderful place to live.
An ex-student of mine from the 1960s said to me: ‘Are you still here?’ Yes, I am still here, because I love the Territory. It is a great place to be and I love the people of the Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the motion commending the Rudd Labor government and the Commonwealth parliament for their motion on the Stolen Generations. As a member of the Northern Territory parliament, I stand here today privileged to be in a position where I can take the opportunity to express my own personal feelings about the past injustices inflicted on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in particular, and throughout Australia. Today is undeniably a pivotal point in Australia’s history. It is very sad that it has taken 11 years to get an acknowledgement from the federal government.
Anybody who listened to the Prime Minister’s speech this morning would have been moved. It struck heartstrings across the nation. I believe many kids probably missed school this morning, and many people perhaps missed starting work at 8 am. It was something that I have not seen in my lifetime, where the nation stopped to listen to something that was very moving and reflected on our history - a history which has been denied and skewed over time for a vast number of philosophical reasons.
Policy initiatives based on race are not new. There are many and varied examples which are a blight on the history of civilisations through government controls, regulations and sanctions on race-based genocides, and/or the control, removal and deliberate segregation of the children of indigenous native occupants of the land. The implications of legislation pertinent to the Northern Territory was such that Aboriginal people could remain under the care and control of the Chief Protector or Director of Welfare, allowing him total control over the lives of any Aboriginal or half-caste, and make decisions on his or her welfare regardless of whether the welfare was required.
By the 1950s, some half-caste people were exempted under the legislation. However, half-caste children of Aboriginal mothers were automatically declared wards under the control of the Chief Protector by virtue of the fact that they had one or more native parent as defined under the act at that time. Full-blood Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory remained under the control of the Native Affairs legislation until self-government in 1978, and were not allowed to travel, marry, work, or protest about any decision made on their behalf or on behalf of their children. The children of these people were not only removed or segregated from immediate family, but expected to deny their parentage in order to assimilate.
Contact between these families was extremely difficult under regulations of the ordinance that controlled the movement of Aboriginal people, disallowing travel unless with the express permission of the Chief Protector. If these visits did occur they were strictly supervised to ensure the continued segregation of full-blood parents and their children so that the evil influences of full-bloods was contained. Incredibly, the prevailing view was that Aboriginal parents were less likely to grieve or suffer the losses through this removal as they were non-human, devoid of feeling and emotion. Aboriginal parents were unable to remove their children for visits or holidays, and visitation was discouraged by the erection of fences and borders, and regulations which defined half-castes and Aboriginals.
It is not difficult to envisage images from stories revealed about piccaninnies sneaking breastfeeding through the fences of these compounds, and young children having visits with their native mothers. Contact between them was expressly frowned upon and discouraged by missionaries to ensure that the bond between mother and child was broken. The assumption that the intent of these policies was for the benefit of Aboriginal people is a myth perpetrated by the Commonwealth government to justify its willingness to forcibly remove children.
Myth has no place in acknowledgement of past wrongs and must be immediately and emphatically quashed by the government. There is no question of the intent giving consent to the idea that the ever-growing population of half-caste children would need to be managed under the paternalistic view, implying that these children could be rescued and moulded into the class of people that could and would be able to make a meaningful contribution to society. Genocide was superseded by assimilation and then segregation, and sanctioned by the simple gesture that one problem appeared to exceed the other.
The laws of the Northern Territory to do with assimilation and injustice, perpetrated on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, stretch back to 1910. My son’s grandfather was forcibly removed and incarcerated in The Bungalows in Alice Springs. He is a very fine gentleman, a very proud gentleman. He talks with a smile on his face about the hardships, and that is his dignity. My daughter’s grandmother talks about those times also. Having a seven-year-old daughter and her grandmother in her late 50s, I guess, makes you reflect on the parallel time frame of someone coming in and taking my daughter, because I am a member of the Labor Party or I support the Hawthorn Football Club - no basis about the care or the welfare of that child. Someone can come in and grab my daughter and take her away and say that I cannot see her because of a particular trait within my character, or I come from some racial background. That is the core of this issue; that assumption that all full-blood Aboriginal people could not look after their children. The breeding out of the Aboriginal race was the sole intent of these policies.
You had situations where welfare officers would go in to communities - same community, same conditions - and they would take the half-caste child but leave the full-blood child there, under some premise that it was in the interests of the child. However, clearly, the children were in the same situation. You have situations where people do not know who their parents are. They do not know where their brothers and sisters are. This morning, we heard from Prime Minister Rudd how people were separated once from their families and then twice from their families, amongst their siblings - and the indiscriminate nature of that.
The significance for me, in this parliament, is that these were laws and policies of the government of the day. If we make any law in this parliament and we get it wrong, we have an obligation to say sorry. We have an obligation to say: ‘We got it wrong. We did the wrong thing’. Sadly, that has not been the case for far too long in the federal parliament, and I believe that has added to the distress of members of the Stolen Generations and their families. That is why today is a significant event. We have seen a new federal Labor government attending to it on the second day – straightaway as this Labor government did in the Territory some six-and-a-half years ago.
It is truly a momentous day. It will not fix the situation for members of the Stolen Generations, those Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed. It will not fix the flow-on effects on their families, the children of members of the Stolen Generations who are suffering socially and financially through their upbringing by their parents, but it does go a long way. The feeling, watching on the television and then listening on the radio, was truly momentous in this nation and that cannot be overlooked. The nation today is with the members of the Stolen Generations, with their families. It is saying: ‘We say sorry. We recognise as a parliament that we got it wrong and we have to take responsibility for it’.
Congratulations to the federal Rudd Labor government for introducing this motion. I thank other members in the Commonwealth parliament who have supported the motion. I thank my colleagues in this House who have spoken about it; it is truly a significant step. However, there is a long way ahead for the further issue of Aboriginal disadvantage, and that is going to be the next challenge. Let us enjoy today. Let us remember it forever in this nation’s history, but let us all work together for a brighter future. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, welcome to all the visitors to parliament on this momentous day in the nation’s history. It is important that the national parliament says sorry. In coming to this point, there was a debate about culpability and blame, and whether people of today should be apologising for actions of those in the past.
That argument missed an important point: parliaments are eternal. The Australian parliament, this parliament, and the others of the states and territories, are there in perpetuity. Those of us who are privileged to be within any of those Chambers are but passers-by; we have stewardship for a very short time before handing on to others. It is the responsibility of the parliament, not the individuals. That is why I feel that it is extremely important for the parliament to have apologised for a very bleak part of our history - one that took a great deal of time to even be recognised.
I pay tribute to the strength of those who fought to have this recognition. It is your day, a day for your families; an important day in which the whole nation is privileged to share - and ought to be privileged.
It is very difficult, I find, to speak when we have had speeches of the magnitude of the members for Barkly, Macdonnell and Arnhem. I hope the briefness of my contribution will not be thought of as disrespectful in any way. It is merely a recognition that I cannot fully express with the same skill as those previous speakers, beyond saying that the apology is not before time; that it represents, thankfully, the desire of the majority of people of this nation and forms an important part in the building blocks of this nation as it continues to develop its national identity of which indigenous people are a great and important component.
I am privileged to be able to call the members for Arnhem and Macdonnell sisters, as is the member for Port Darwin as well. It is a closeness of relationship. I was extremely privileged to have known the member for Arnhem’s mother and to have shared the joy of the Yanyuwa at the handover of their traditional lands.
It has been a long journey from terra nullius, all the way through to where we stand today, recognising indigenous culture, indigenous values, and the importance and complexity of the indigenous way of life. This, the recognition of the Stolen Generations and their pain, is but one more step in that greater national identity. I pay tribute to those families and wish them every enjoyment for today, and remember some of those who began the fight for recognition at its most difficult time and, unfortunately, did not see the ultimate fruits of their labours.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in closing debate on this motion today, I thank everyone who contributed, because we all are, I suppose, observers of what has happened in regards to the Stolen Generations, their histories and their stories. , We, obviously, have members of this House where it was very personal because of the immediate impact on their families and communities. In talking to some of the people in the gallery today outside, it truly has been a remarkable day for so many, particularly those old people whom we all know and have great affection for that, at last, towards the end of the rich and full lives that they have led, there is some sense of closure.
In talking to some of the people outside, people have mixed emotions; they are sad, reflecting on what happened to them and their families, and they are happy and relieved that at last the federal parliament of Australia has recognised the wrongs, the injustice and the devastation that the laws enacted by those previous parliaments have placed on individual people.
When listening to the debate across the national media today, I do not know who it was or what the context was, a question was put to non-indigenous Australians after the Prime Minister’s speech to reflect on how we would feel if authorities came into our homes and took our children away. I cannot even begin to comprehend how I would feel. To reflect that this happened to so many thousands and thousands of indigenous Australian families over a period of time from the late 1920s to the early 1970s is an absolute blight on this nation’s history. No matter what the policy intent was, the fact was that it happened and it should not have happened. It should not have happened because all of us sitting in here today would not even contemplate enacting such terrible laws.
Today, I believe, is a day of closure on that chapter of devastation that affected so many thousands of families right across Australia in indigenous communities, in the hope that, as the member for Arnhem said, we can all move forward together and actually right some of those terrible wrongs that have devastated so many families, so many communities, and start to put right those wrongs and build a better future for indigenous people across this great country of ours.
It has been an enormous day in Australia’s history. This parliament has played its small part. For the people who were here today in our galleries, I hope that all of those people go home and believe in their hearts that we can move forward together as a nation and really start to build a better life for indigenous people. The commitment is certainly here. I believe the commitment is on all sides of politics. We know there is a big job to do. The fact that the Prime Minister of Australia has embarked on a bipartisan way forward is a true reflection, I believe, of how all of the states, territories and the Commonwealth are going to come together. Very importantly, we have to engage our indigenous communities as we move forward. Solutions imposed will never be solutions, but joint commitments to move forward will certainly move forward.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House. I thank all honourable members for their contributions and, once again, congratulate the Commonwealth parliament of Australia and our new Prime Minister for, as he said at the closing of his speech today, calling for a new chapter in the history of this great land Australia.
Motion agreed to.
YOUTH JUSTICE (FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 133)
(Serial 133)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As both the Chief Minister and I have detailed in the past couple of days, the bill I am introducing today is part of the broader strategy to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory. The strategy has three main elements and this bill contains the details of two of them: limiting access to diversion programs, and the introduction of the family responsibility agreements and orders. The third element, the introduction of youth camps in both Alice Springs and the Top End, is not one that requires legislative amendment at this stage. The investigation into the long-term youth camps is, as we have detailed, ongoing. I look forward to keeping the House updated on progress in this area.
As I said, this bill contains two major amendments to the Youth Justice Act. The first involves a limit being put on access to formal diversion. The bill does this by providing that the obligation to divert a youth does not apply if that youth has been previously referred to a diversion program or to youth conferencing on two or more previous occasions in respect of two or more situations.
Instead, where the youth has already had the benefit of two or more diversions to a program or youth justice conference, police will charge a youth with the relevant offence and that youth will go before the courts. This will not interfere with the overall discretion that police have in respect of charging and prosecution of offences. Additionally, there is a safeguard in the bill that allows the Commissioner of Police to authorise or require formal diversion in relation to any youths. It is envisaged that this provision will only be used in exceptional circumstances and is there solely to ensure that injustice does not result from the introduction of these new restrictions.
I now come to the second arm of this bill which introduces family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders. This initiative not only holds families accountable for the actions of their children but also provides family with the tools and motivation necessary through increased support services that I will detail shortly, to enable them to become better parents and work to address their children’s problematic behaviour. The purpose of this bill is to provide for an early intervention strategy. Its aims are to identify those youths who are engaging in low-level antisocial or even criminal behaviour and who are at risk of drifting into more serious crime, and provide assistance to their parents or guardians through a coordinated process of agreements and community and government support.
For a number of different reasons there are young people in the community who disengage with their family, their schools and the community. This might be due to poor guidance and support from their parents or guardians, or because of a family member’s substance abuse. The result is young people truanting from school and hanging around in public places late at night where they become involved in low-level antisocial or even criminal behaviour.
This bill, which amends the Youth Justice Act, recognises that in some cases behaviour of this kind is linked to behaviour or inaction at home. Where that link exists, authorised agents - generally from DEET, FACS, DOJ or police - will be able to enter into a family responsibility agreement with the parent or guardian of a youth up to the age of 18. Before entering into a family responsibility agreement, the authorised agency must be of the opinion that an agreement may assist the family to resolve its problems.
Where the youth does not live with a parent or parents, the bill allows the agreement to be made with whichever person has parental responsibility for the youth. This might be a grandmother or auntie or uncle, depending on the youth’s circumstances. A family responsibility agreement will be a written contract that requires the parent or guardian to undertake the obligations stated in the agreement. An agreement will have two objectives. The first is to enable the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively. To achieve this, an agreement might include that the parent or guardian attend a drug, alcohol or anger management program or counselling to assist the parents to address any other problematic behaviour such as gambling, if it is one or more of these behaviours that is getting in the way of the person providing effective parenting to the child in their care.
The other requirements of an agreement might include that the parent or guardian undertakes parental guidance counselling, join an appropriate support group, or undertake a program of personal development. Other requirements can also be built into the agreement where they are agreed by the parties and relevant to the effective care and supervision of the youth.
The second objective of the family responsibility agreement will be to focus the parent or guardian’s attention on the structured day-to-day needs of their child to ensure that they stay out of trouble. This means that agreements might also require the parent or guardian to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. In making these agreements, parents and guardians will not be left to their own devices; they will be assisted by an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will be charged to link them up with community services and programs and government support relevant to that person’s agreement and needs. In short, this officer will assist the parent to comply with the terms of the agreement. Importantly, no conditions will be included in an agreement with a family unless the services or facilities required for the parents or guardians to comply with the conditions are available in the area where the family lives. This is consistent with the objective of the bill, which is to help families rather than set families up to fail with conditions the parents or guardians are clearly not able to meet.
It is acknowledged from the outset that sometimes these voluntary agreements may not work. This might be because the parent or guardian refuses to enter or comply with an agreement, or where a child continues to exhibit the same problematic behaviour. In these circumstances, the agency can bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order. Police can also bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order where an agreement was not previously in place but where a youth has been charged with an offence or has breached a condition of bail. The application will be heard separately from the hearing for the prosecution of the offence. In all other respects, hearings following a police request for an order will proceed in the same way as those applications that commenced by way of family responsibility agreement.
Where an application is brought to the court, the court will conduct an inquiry into the family circumstances of the youth for the purposes of ascertaining whether those circumstances have caused or contributed to the youth’s problems. This inquiry will not be in the nature of a criminal inquiry. The process will simply operate to identify those aspects of the family arrangement that are preventing the parent and/or the youth from improving their behaviour and family circumstances, and determine whether the situation is likely to be improved by a family responsibility order. The court will not be bound by the normal rules of evidence in this and can seek information in any way it sees fit. In its inquiries into whether an order ought to be made, the court will be required to consider a number of matters before making an order. The court’s consideration of these factors will assist and determine whether an order is the correct measure to take. These factors include whether the members of the family suffer from any type of mental or physical disability that would cause the youth’s behaviour, or whether the parents have attempted to manage or control the youth’s behaviour. These and other factors will guide the courts in their decision-making and act as safeguards for those who appear before the court.
If, after the inquiry, the court considers that the youth’s family situation is likely to be improved by a family responsibility order, the court will proceed to make one. Available terms for an order will mirror the terms of a family responsibility agreement, including possible conditions relating to the parent or guardian’s own behaviour, the need for counselling, parental guidance support, or other personal development. The court will have the discretion to order the parent or guardian to undertake whatever program it considers will help the parent or guardian to better manage their own life and behaviour so that they can provide effective care and supervision of the young person in their care.
Orders might also contain conditions that compel the parent or guardian to exercise proper care and supervision of the youth and take all reasonable steps to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. An order can be put in place for a child between the ages of 10 and 18 for a maximum term of 12 months. Again, there will be an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will assist the parent or guardian to comply with the terms of the order. This officer will engage with the family to provide appropriate referrals to community service providers, government agencies and programs as required, as well as monitor compliance with the order for the purpose of reporting the family’s progress to court.
The difference between a family responsibility agreement and a family responsibility order is that a court order will compel the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively, and to exercise proper supervision of the youth in their care.
As with all orders of the court, if the parent or guardian does not comply with the conditions contained in the order, there will be a penalty. This will only proceed if the parent or guardian does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an order, and after reasonable attempts by the Family Responsibility Program to achieve compliance have failed. In this case, a fine of up to $2200 can be imposed. Where a fine is not paid, it will be enforced through either seizure of non-essential household goods, or the issuing of a Community Work Order.
As with all court orders, there is provision for the variation and revocation of an order by the parties. This builds in the necessary flexibility required to respond to changing circumstances. Any decision of the court will be based on whether the variation or revocation sought is in the best interests of the child, consistent with one of the overriding principles of the bill. This ensures that the necessary objective of the scheme is maintained and avoids abuse of the provision.
Also included in the bill is the provision for the protection of the names of family members from publication. This will mean that youths and their parents will not be shamed by being named in the media if an application for an order is sought. This recognises that this process is to assist families to improve their situation, rather than any naming and shaming or potential harassment of the individuals involved. This prohibition from publication will also apply to any third party; for example, a person named in an order as someone the youth should avoid.
Consistent with this respect for the personal privacy of those involved in this process, this government has also approved the development of a code of practice. This will be an administrative process to be overseen by the Information Commissioner that will ensure that, where the personal information of the subject family is shared between the agency and, perhaps, another agency and the Family Responsibility Program for the purpose of administering family responsibility agreements and orders, it is protected from disclosure. A code of practice will require that the use of all personal information is consistent with the information privacy principles contained in the Information Act.
So that government can roll out this project in an orderly way, the bill contains provision for regulations to be made that limit the operation of the bill in respect to the power to make family responsibility orders to particular regions or parts of the Territory. This will mean that government will determine which areas of the Territory will be brought in under the umbrella of this project and at what time.
Finally, the bill provides a mechanism for review of the legislation after 12 months. This will give government the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of family responsibility agreements and orders, and determine if changes to the scheme are required.
It is important to note that these amendments are not intended to replace the process in the Community Welfare Act, or the soon-to-be-commenced Care and Protection of Children Act, where a child is at risk of maltreatment. These amendments are intended to assist the families of youths who are experiencing difficulties to get back on track. The family responsibility agreements and orders will provide a structured approach to addressing the individual difficulties experienced by some families in the community, and assist those parents and guardians who may not recognise the importance of their role in the provision of responsible parenting.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
DARWIN WATERFRONT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 128)
(Serial 128)
Continued from 29 October 2007.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this amendment bill is supported by opposition. We understand the need for it. However, there are a number of matters that do need to be clarified when we look at the waterfront. I take this opportunity to present those matters so that we can have a better understanding of this very important project to government and to the tourism sector, and to the Top End in particular.
The first relates to the time line. This convention centre was promised by mid-2007 and still has not been completed. That is a concern and I trust that, in the minister’s response, there will be some reference given to the commitment that was initially made to the Territory community regarding when the project, or particularly the convention centre, would be brought to completion. The original Darwin co-consortium draft master plan clearly indicated that the whole of Stage 1 was to be completed by the end of 2007.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr MILLS: The Darwin co-consortium draft master plan clearly indicates …
Mr Henderson: Those were documents before financial close.
Mr MILLS: … that the whole of Stage 1 was to be completed by 2007.
Mr Henderson: Before financial close.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity in a moment to clarify that, but that is what was clearly presented to the Territory community.
Second, there was a clear understanding presented to the Territory community that the cost of the project - and the words that were carefully used at the time were ‘the entire site’ - and the commitment for the entire site would be $100m - and very importantly described - in today’s dollar terms. That ‘entire site’ seems to imply Stages 1, 2 and 3. That was not clarified at the time. It appears now that the costs have exceeded $100m in today’s dollar terms. Therefore, we need to have an update on the costs associated with this waterfront development.
There was a briefing on 26 July 2007. Stage 1 commitment by the Territory had expanded then to $149m in today’s dollar terms. I am deliberately using those words because, if the government was approaching a commitment that it is making in the future sense, it would change the value terms. However, when the government is trying to tie it down, we have it in today’s dollar terms. What does it mean in reality? How much is that? Certainly, it has gone from $100m when the implication was that it was for all stages. One could be quite justified to think that the whole thing is going to cost $100m. However, Stage 1 is going to cost $149m. We do need some more information on that.
It is interesting also that the draft master plan promised a whole range of things. This was the proposition that was placed before the Northern Territory community at the beginning. You may recall, honourable members who are all sitting there eagerly listening to all this, that there were master plans presented in shopping centres, a special little shop in the mall, and there were road shows where everyone could get a good look at it in its very early stages.
Things were painted in a particular way at that stage. The cost and when it would be completed were presented to the community. Those two things have changed; we need some more explanation on that. There have been attempts from the opposition to have these matters raised but we are told it is commercial-in-confidence. Good heavens! It was a contract, I believe, made with the Territory community.
When this was presented to the Northern Territory community, they were shown all of these wonderful things that would be included in the project which would be there for public use. The draft master plan promised the following: it referred to art markets – they have gone; it referred to water gardens – they have also gone; barbecue and picnic area – it is not there anymore; sculpture walk – not there; seating terraces – gone; marker tower – gone; food market stalls – gone; water sports – gone except for pay-as-you-use wave pool; amphitheatre – gone …
Mr Conlan: Beach umbrellas.
Mr MILLS: Beach umbrellas – they have gone too, as has the lagoon; that is if the wave pool has one. I would like to get an update on this wave pool. We do not hear much about it any more. Beach volleyball has gone. We thought we were going to get that. There are a heck of a lot of things on this list that are now missing. Retail promenade – well, that is still there because that can make money. But public amenity so far is missing. The things we were told in those beautiful presentations around the community - all missing. Casual seating – well, that is probably still there because you have to keep park benches. Swimming pools have gone in favour of a user-pays wave lagoon. Lifeguard tower - I trust that is still there. Caf - I am sure that is going to be there in some form. Children’s playground – gone. The Waterfront Promenade is still there. Cultural and historical centre – gone; it is a restaurant now. The restaurant has been moved to where the cultural centre was going to be. Sea wall walk - that is still there. Convention centre - nearly there, but they told us it was going to be there last year. A hotel – that is still there.
In short, if you pay for using it, it is still there. If you want to get a freebie and have a public amenity for the tax investment that Territorians have invested in this project - which is now costing more than what they were told in the first place - not only are you paying more, but you are getting less.
They are the open, honest and transparent guidelines that I would expect a sincere and genuine government to communicate to the community. You can put out the glossies and all these trinkets and toys: ‘Don’t worry, folks, it is going to be fantastic’. Then you find that it has all been stripped bare, back to the basics.
I had a very interesting discussion with a journalist the other day. If you have the weight of numbers you can play with the ideas in their head and keep them lobbied and pressured and focused in the way that you want them focused. We were talking about major infrastructure projects and that Access Economics said: ‘Big trouble ahead for the Territory’ because ...
Mr Henderson: It did not say that.
Ms Lawrie: They are not saying that.
Mr MILLS: You obviously did not read it either ...
Mr Henderson: I did read it. It did not say ‘big trouble ahead’.
Mr MILLS: Do you recall – Madam Deputy Speaker, protect me, please - it said, ‘big trouble ahead’.
Ms Lawrie: They said we are going to be the highest growth in the nation for the next five years.
Mr MILLS: There you go, you guys. You must have a spin factory up there; you just believe the spin. Can you not even read the Access Economics reports by yourself without someone breathing into your ear: ‘Yes, this is the good stuff; do not worry about the bad stuff’? The Access Economics report said that Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory all bear the influence of a resources boom. It said all our eggs are in the China basket so, when China goes ...
Mr Henderson: They did not say that.
Ms Lawrie: They did not say it.
Mr MILLS: I am going to have to table this thing, you poor guys. You guys have staff coming out your ears, and you do not even know what is written in the report ...
Mr Henderson: Yes, I read it.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, we do actually know what is written in it. You are not representing what is written in it.
Mr Henderson: Table it
Mr MILLS: I will, do not worry. I will have to circulate it. Four opposition, and you are happy to beat us up here. I am happy to read the report, but you deny what is in the report ...
Mr Henderson: You can’t mislead the House.
Mr MILLS: It said all the nation’s eggs are in the China basket …
Ms Lawrie: No.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it did. The nation’s eggs are in the China basket, the resources boom is having a positive effect on Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory. However, it says that the Territory has potholes ahead because it is missing major infrastructure projects over the horizon.
The point of this is, that this journalist that I spoke to - because it had obviously been plugged straight into the fifth floor and there had been information such as the stuff you are spouting now, all the good stuff, and you missed all the other part of it – said: ‘Isn’t the waterfront a major infrastructure project?’ Not really, not on the scale that Access Economics refers to. Major infrastructure projects are oil and gas, and we have Alcan and ConocoPhillips. The waterfront is another type of development that does not fit in the same league that the Access Economics report was weighing up.
Therefore, we have to recognise that there has been an involvement of government, on behalf of taxpayers, Territorians, and an understanding established in the mind of the community, but that understanding is now altered by the actions of government. You have demanded more and invested, and required more from the community and given them less in return.
There are other aspects of the waterfront, and it is necessary that we have a talk about it. Before you come out with a churlish and shallow point-scoring exercise, trying to say, ‘You hate the waterfront, you hate the waterfront’, you need to develop a more mature and sophisticated line.
Some of those matters have been addressed - and you have tried this before. You raise matters like this and, rather than attend to them, you will bat it away and try to paint the opposition as though we hate the waterfront. That is nonsense. We are in opposition to ask questions and, hopefully, if we have a genuine government, they will provide some answers. We do not often get that; we get the spin, the hype, the denials of anything that is slightly unfavourable to the carefully crafted image that government endeavours to present. There are a number of issues. That said, it has given me an opportunity to say some of those things, and there is more to come.
We will not oppose the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Amendment Bill. We support it, but there are a number of issues related to this project of which the community needs to be advised. I am wondering why you do not spend all your time in the shopping centres and out in the marketplace with your glossy brochures explaining the stuff you have taken away. You do not. You like to tell all the front-end stuff to make yourselves look good. When it does not look good, you either blame someone like the opposition - poor old opposition - or someone else. You have changed your position and you do not have the sincerity to communicate your changed position. Pay more, getting less. We support the amendment, however.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill, but I would be happy to go to committee to discuss one clause if that is possible.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their support, but I am going to have to address some of the diatribe contributed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that the opposition has hated this project from day one. From the day it was conceived they have railed against it, complained about it …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: They have railed against it and have used every single opportunity to bag this project. I have been in this place a fair time and I have been in the Territory for nearly 25 years. There were some former members of CLP governments in days gone by who would be spinning on their heels to see the CLP in opposition now bagging a major infrastructure project for the Northern Territory ...
Mr Mills: Bagging the project? We are not bagging the project.
Mrs Miller: I do not know how you sleep at night with the spin. I really do not know.
Mr HENDERSON: This is a party that used to dream big, used to think big and used to love the big projects. Today, they are reduced to grumbling, sniping and trying to pull down what is …
Ms Lawrie: Whining!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am very concerned. The member for Karama said I was lying …
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not, I said ‘whining’
Mr Mills: Oh, whining. My apologies. It is almost as bad.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, they are consistent from day one from conception. They have tried to tear this project down and they will not succeed. They will not succeed because this is a project that will deliver additional investment, jobs, and economic growth for the Northern Territory for years and years to come. Even the Auditor-General - I do not have exact figures in front of me - acknowledged that the multipliers in GDP growth and jobs growth for the Territory are just extraordinary. I would have thought the new leader would have come in and decided to take a different view rather than trying to tear this down, because many people in the business community scratch their heads and wonder where on earth the opposition is coming from.
The convention centre has injected $66m into this economy in Darwin, with 180 people employed on an almost day-to-day basis. The convention centre already has 23 or 24 conventions booked for 2008-09 with 8200 tourists who will be coming to Darwin, our capital city, who would not have been coming unless the convention centre was here. Malu Barrios already has 30-odd people on the books, and all of those people have been recruited from the Northern Territory, she was telling me the other day. And they continue to bag it and talk it down!
The CLP’s vision for the old industrial area at Stokes Hill Wharf was, essentially, a concrete – it looked like a car park, with a big spire. The convention centre that they dreamt about – which we are actually building - was going to be put in the middle of town somewhere, next to somebody’s hotel, fully-funded by the taxpayer, with no public/private partnership, and no leveraged investment. They had run out of ideas and they still have no ideas. For somebody who purports to be a future Chief Minister, to be nitpicking around what everybody acknowledges will be a very significant economic multiplier for the Northern Territory is really quite bizarre.
This project will leverage between $800m to $900m of private sector investment in Darwin - in today’s dollar terms, an investment of around $140m. The reason we cannot be exact is that we will be getting returns on property sales into the future and, with the property market going the way it is at the moment, who knows what those returns are going to be.
Regarding the Auditor-General, it has all been through actuarial advice, and the Auditor-General has ticked off on this. This is a project that will deliver for Territory taxpayers. It will deliver jobs and investment. What it will also deliver, regarding those conventions that come to this great city of ours, is people from professional backgrounds or walks of life - whether it is the medical profession, the accounting profession, the engineering profession - coming to conventions in Darwin and saying: ‘What a fabulous place this is. Why am I stuck in the traffic in Sydney for two or three hours a day when I and my family could be living in Darwin? There are plenty of jobs here, there are plenty of opportunities here. They may move to Darwin, Madam Speaker.
There will also be people coming to conventions who will be coming from commercial sectors, from business sectors. They will come to this great Territory of ours, to Darwin, and say: ‘Gee, why haven’t we got a commercial interest up here? This place is on fire! We are going to invest!’ That is what this project is going to deliver for Darwin.
Outside of that, over 20 years, I think it is around $193m additional to the tourism industry. I would think that the member for Katherine would acknowledge that this is going to be good for tourism. I acknowledge that the member for Katherine has an interest in tourism but, really, all we hear is knock, knock, whinge, whinge, whine, and whine about the convention centre.
The issue in regard to the documents the member was talking about, and the time line of mid-2007, I got to the bottom of last week. Once again, they have some old documents buried in the drawer up there on the fourth floor. These were a series of information sheets, as the project was progressing through the various stages of being out for bid in the commercial sector, documents that were produced to keep the community informed about the progress of this project prior to financial close. They were indicative time lines, and they were working papers whilst we were out to tender, working through the preferred bidders during negotiations in the final conclusions around contractual arrangements and before financial close. Therefore, to waltz out into the public and say, ‘Here it is, you promised it would be finished by mid-2007’, is a furphy.
The reality is that the convention centre is three months ahead of schedule, and that is good news …
Mr Mills: What?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is three months ahead of contracted schedule. If you care to go down - we know you guys do not know anybody in the business community any more ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: If you were to talk to Steve Margetic of Sitzler Bros, which has done a magnificent job on the construction of this convention centre …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Talk to Steve Margetic and he will tell you it is three months ahead of contracted schedule! He scratches his head and thinks: ‘Gee, what is that Terry Mills on about? He is complaining about this magnificent project’ ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you please pause. Honourable members, there is a considerable …
Mr Conlan: Channel this energy into the oncology unit and addressing law and order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there has been a considerable amount of interjection and interruption in the last half hour. I remind you of Standing Order 51 and also Standing Order 69:
- No member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a member speaking.
The interruption of a member, Standing Order 69:
- No member may interrupt another member speaking unless (a) to call attention to the question of order or privilege suddenly arising; (b) to call attention to the want of a quorum; (c) to call attention to the presence of strangers; (d) to move a closure motion; or (e) to move that the business of the day be called on.
I have to say that I have not heard any of those things in this last little while. I will be listening very carefully in the future to all members.
Mr Mills: Looking both ways, I trust, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I looked both ways.
Mr Mills: Yes, thank you.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, I was just going to ask that point of order, Madam Speaker, that it applies both ways.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Katherine. Please resume your seat. Chief Minister, please continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the Access Economics document here and, if we go to it, it demonstrates that we are going to have the highest growth rates in the nation for the next five years in GDP growth and employment growth. It does not say that this economy is – I forget the turn of phrase from the honourable member …
Mr Mills: Hitting a pothole.
Mr HENDERSON: No, you said it was plummeting or a downfall or whatever ...
Mr Mills: No, I said hitting a pothole.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: What it does say is:
- … Access Economics has stressed before, this is more likely to be ‘the pause that refreshes’ rather than ‘the downturn that lingers’.
- Construction activity remains at high levels, and approvals of projects kicked up again in recent months …
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition did not get the paper on Monday, 4 February 2008, which talked about the $5bn worth of construction activity that is going on in the NT right now. I do not know which cave the Leader of the Opposition lives in to not know that there are more cranes on the skyline in Darwin than there are in Brisbane at the moment, and we are going through a very strong phase of economic growth. All we have is the opposition using every opportunity to knock this great project.
It is going to be delivered. It is employing hundreds of people and investing millions of dollars into our economy. The legacy of the foresight of this government in investing in this project will see significant GDP growth, significant jobs growth, and significant population growth for the Northern Territory for many years to come.
I am very pleased that the opposition support the amendments in this bill - that they did not even discuss at all. I am sure that the member for Nelson will have some pertinent, relevant questions pertaining to the bill in the committee stage. I know the member for Nelson does his work in regard to legislation and doing the job that we are all accountable for, which is scrutinising the legislation that comes before this House and ensuring that everybody has an understanding of it before we pass it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I put this to the committee stage because I would like to get a better understanding of exactly what this means. Clause 5(3) says:
Except as otherwise provided by a law of the Territory, a lessee of land owned by the Corporation is not exempt from the liabilities and requirements mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).
This relates to section 18 of the act which states:
18. Corporation exempt from certain taxes and charges
- other requirements
(for example,
licensing or registration requirements) imposed by the by-laws.
First of all, Chief Minister, how does section 18 of the existing act work if the area of the waterfront is actually not part of the Darwin municipality? It says here ‘the corporation, as the owner or controller of the land’, but we have taken the waterfront out of the Darwin municipality which would be the normal council that would charge rates. What does that mean, because it looks like it is talking to itself? Maybe I am wrong there.
My next question to follow from that was: how can a lessee be charged for rates? That gives you an idea of the two areas I am trying to follow. How does this work in practice?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I hope I get this right in explaining it to the member for Nelson. This is an integrated commercial/retail/residential precinct. It is a major project. The intention of the government was always that this project would be encompassed within the Darwin City Council boundaries for the provision of municipal services. That is where we wanted to go.
Unfortunately - and this is the truth as I see it - the council, under the leadership of the previous Lord Mayor, Peter Adamson, took the view that they did not support the project either and did not want the responsibility of providing municipal services. We were not going to allow that position to take shape. Obviously, in the provision of municipal services, if the council does not want to or will not provide them, then this act was put in place to establish a corporation, the requirements of which are to, essentially, manage the property and the precinct and deliver those municipal services as part of its functions.
That is the history of it; we will get to the specifics in a moment. I am pleased to say that, with the change of Lord Mayor, there is debate and dialogue now reoccurring. There is a draft contract of services with Darwin City Council and negotiations are happening in regard to, potentially over time, the city council reversing their current position and accepting the waterfront development into their boundaries. However, discussions are happening, which is good, whereby they were not previously happening.
Regarding the amendments that are before us, these are just about clarification of the capacity for the corporation to actually levy rates, not only on the residential people who are going to be within the boundary that this act covers, but also commercial operators. The advice from the legal people was the act was unclear about whether the corporation had the capacity to levy rates to people who had commercial leases within those boundaries. There is also an amendment to make it very clear that the corporation has the ability to enter into arrangements with Darwin City Council or other bodies on a fee-for-service basis to provide services to the community that will be living within those boundaries.
I do not know how that answers your question, member for Nelson, but the amendments in this act clarify that the corporation will have the ability to enter into arrangements for the provision of municipal services if there is agreement to do so, and also that lessees of land owned by the corporation are liable to pay rates. That is to clarify not just for people with residential rights, but that commercial lessees of land are also liable to pay rates to the corporation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Chief Minister. I am not trying to be political here, but just from a functional way that the council should run regardless of who is mayor or president, I would expect that person to reflect the majority view of the councillors, regardless of who is in charge. I imagine the council would have voted for that particular policy. Hopefully, that is the way good councils run.
Mr HENDERSON: Those same councillors are now coming around.
Mr WOOD: Oh, that is fine and fair enough. To me, that is what council should be about - reflecting what the councillors themselves say.
I will not go on with this too long. Can I get it clear that the reason that section 18 is there is because the corporation could be charged for rates by whom? By the government? It says here the corporation, as the owner or controller of land in the precinct, is not liable for any rates. Who would rate that corporation? If it does not belong to the municipality of Darwin, would that mean that the government would rate it? Does the government actually still own the land underneath this? Am I wrong there as well?
Mr HENDERSON: These amendments make it clear that the corporation itself is not liable for any rates or levies.
Mr WOOD: From whom would that be? Who would actually charge the corporation a rate if it is not in the Darwin municipality?
Mr HENDERSON: Section 18 says that the corporation is exempt from certain taxes and charges; however, the owners of residential property are not exempt from taxes and charges and rates. Taxes and charges on the sale of residential property, such as stamp duty and what have you, are payable to Northern Territory Treasury. Because Darwin City Council decided that they were not going to be providing municipal services to the residential and commercial properties that are going to be within these boundaries, the corporation can levy rates on those properties for the provision of municipal services. The amendment makes it clear that people who do not have freehold title there but lease land for commercial purposes - maybe the hotel, shops and other commercial entities - are liable to pay rates to the corporation.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. If you read this amendment, it refers to section 18 of the original act. It says the corporation, as the owner and controller of land in the precinct, is not liable for any rates. Someone would have to charge them a rate for them to be exempt of the rate.
Mr HENDERSON: Further clarification from the good departmental people. Regarding section 18, Corporations exempt from taxes and charges, the corporation has been, in part, set up to provide municipal services, and has been given specific powers under this legislation to charge rates to both residential and commercial people within the land which the waterfront contains. Because they have been given the capacity to levy those charges, the act is clear that it goes to an accounting, book entry thing, that they are not able to charge themselves any rates. Although they have been established as owning the land - it is because they own the land, unless it is residential freehold land - they have been established to provide municipal services, and there is no requirement for them to pay rates on the land that they own that is not leased. Does that make sense?
Mr WOOD: I ask the question: why, therefore, is it in the act? It is a bit like saying the Darwin City Council should be exempt from paying rates on its own property. It would be nonsensical. All right, that is fine. I needed to get that clarified, because my second question relates to the amendment.
Normally, and I may be wrong here – I tried to clarify it today and could not get clarification – you can only pay rates on land, because rates are a charge on the land. Here, you are charging a rate on the lessee who does not own the land. I envisage that, normally, the owner of the shopping centre would be rated, and he would pass that rate through the rent on to the lessees.
Mr HENDERSON: The amendment makes it clear, as I said before, that entities that have a commercial lease with the corporation are not exempt from rates. However, it does not necessarily mean that the corporation will charge them rates. It just makes it clear they are not exempt from paying rates, and that is the intention of the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I understand, but what I am saying is – and this may be a technical thing – if they decide to charge rates on people who lease property on their land, should it be called a rate or should it just be called a levy? Normally a rate, when you read the definitions of it, is a rate on the land. They do not own the land, therefore, how can you rate the lessee? Or should you forget the word ‘rate’ altogether and say they have the ability to levy the lessees for municipal services?
Mr HENDERSON: As advised, the amendment goes to section 18. The amendment does not just go to the issue of rates, it also goes to stamp duty and any other fees or charges that may be applied to commercial or residential property, and makes it very clear that the corporation itself is exempt. Regarding people who have a commercial lease with a corporation, they are not exempt. It does not just go to the issues of rates, it also goes to the issue of stamp duty and any other taxes and charges that may be part of it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Chief Minister, I understand that but, of course, the amendment does refer to section 18, and that section says that it is not liable for any rates. My argument is: can you actually say that to a lessee; that they are not liable for any rates when you cannot charge them rates because they actually do not own the land. It might sound technical but I am trying to clear up that that is really a valid thing you can put in the act.
Mr HENDERSON: My advice from departmental officers is that this has been worked through with Parliamentary Counsel and Justice officers. The debate is about whether we should be using the words ‘rates’, ‘fees’ or ‘charges’. I am advised that this is to provide for consistency of understanding and this is the way the legislation has been drafted on advice to provide for that consistency of understanding. It is just making it very clear – well, clear to me - that commercial entities who have a lease with the corporation are liable to pay not only rates, but any other taxes and fees and charges that are payable on a commercial lease. The advice that I have is that this wording is appropriate, for want of a better term. I am not in a position to further argue the merits of the word ‘rates’. I trust that, if the Justice and Parliamentary Counsel people are wrong, we will be bringing it back here for an amendment, and I will defer to your knowledge and wisdom on this matter and be the first to say you were right.
Mr WOOD: My knowledge is not always right either. I will leave it at that. It was an issue that I felt does not apply only to commercial people, the way I read it, it applies to someone, I presume, who could lease a block of flats or a unit on a property as well. I would have thought it would have been better to say, ‘You are not exempt from levies and charges, because that is all you do. The cost included in your lease is a fee which covers municipal charges’. I was probably working on the technical term ‘rate’ which should not apply to a lessee. I would prefer if there were to be a levy or a charge, so you did not get that confusion in what a ‘rate’ actually meant. I am quite happy to leave it at that. Thanks for the explanation, Chief Minister.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (DRUG DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 132)
(Serial 132)
Continued from 28 November 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I respond to the second reading speech for the Transport Legislation (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. The opposition supports this bill in principle, as there is no doubt we need to have legislation in place that makes it an offence to drive while under the influence of drugs. There are a couple of areas though, minister, where I do not believe you are tough enough. I will talk about those at a later stage.
It is very important to send a clear message to motorists that driving under the influence of drugs is not acceptable. It as an offence, just as drink-driving is an offence. It is obvious from the number of serious accidents in the Northern Territory that it would be highly likely that drugs have been involved, and it is ludicrous to think that police have been unable to press charges for this offence, yet can do so for drink-driving. Drug-driving can be just as dangerous and, in some instances, more dangerous than drink-driving.
An example of a serious accident caused by a driver under the influence of drugs was the collision of two road trains on the Stuart Highway north of Pine Creek. That was about 12 to 18 months ago. This accident, fortunately, did not result in any human fatalities but, because one of the road trains was carrying cattle, there was a loss of livestock. The accident involving these two trucks created a huge cleanup and, fortunately, resulted in only a limited time that the traffic was held up which was due entirely to the professionalism of the truck companies involved. Getting back to the cause of the accident, one of the drivers was heavily influenced by drugs and police did not have the power to test him, which is quite ludicrous.
For drivers who regularly take drugs, they would have been well aware that there was this loophole in the law and, no doubt, would have exploited it time and time again. Therefore, it is a positive step that this is being introduced.
I am a little curious about the legal disparity between the capacity of police to test drivers for drink-driving and drug-driving, and wonder why this legislation is not tougher on drug-driving. As the minister proposes, if a police officer wants to test a driver for drink-driving there is no requirement for any type of grounds. The proposed section 29AAB gives power to police to apprehend the driver of any vehicle at all for the purpose of conducting a roadside breath test. However, the section limits police from demanding a roadside saliva test to the drivers of vehicles that are over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass. This means the ordinary motorist cannot be randomly tested for drugs but can be randomly tested for alcohol.
Proposed section 29AAF deals with the police power to demand saliva for a drug test but, before the demand can be made, the police officer has to suspect that the person has committed a drug-driving offence or has been involved in a crash. For practical purposes, this means that the police officer has to form a suspicion in their mind because of observations about the driver such as glazed eyes, a traffic breach, or perhaps even slurred speech. It is an entirely sustainable argument that if a police officer has entirely random powers for drink-driving tests, then such powers should extend equally to drug-driving tests. It is up to the police how they use these powers in a practical way.
Second, the offence structure means that upon your first offence for drug-driving, police can merely issue drivers with a traffic infringement notice which is similar to how a lower level drink-driving offence - exceeding between 0.05 and 0.08 - offence is dealt with. That is a positively mild slap on the wrist for a drug-driver and it stands in stark contrast to this government’s zero tolerance attitude towards illicit drugs. I agree that it should be zero tolerance.
The changes that I would like you to consider, minister, are first, that the powers of police to demand saliva should be random as it is within their powers to demand breath samples and, second, that the traffic infringement notice be removed as the first tier of punishment and, where a person is convicted of drug-driving they should be treated as low-level drinkers in the first instance only, then, as a medium-range blood alcohol content for a second offence, and as a high-range blood alcohol content for every subsequent offence. That would be consistent with government’s policy on drink-driving and will send a clear message to the driving public.
Police need the power to apprehend the driver of any vehicle at all for drink and drug testing. To get the message out, random drug testing should be carried out as comprehensively as possible, as soon as possible. There is no point in being half-hearted about getting that message out.
I was reading an article in Reportage, dated 9 July 2005, where Dr Philip Swann who is the manager of Drugs, Alcohol and Fatigue at VicRoads Safety stated:
- Drug-driving is currently one of the biggest problems on our roads. Research shows drugs are related to over 30% of all driver deaths in Australia compared with 20% for alcohol.
That was in 2005, and I assume that those figures are not much different today.
I am aware that the drug test that is being proposed for use when this legislation is in place is sensitive to mishandling, so it is very important that police officers who are nominated to carry out the test are to be highly skilled - as I am sure they will be. These tests need to be accurate the first time and without question, which brings me to another question. Where will the drug tests be analysed and do we have the facilities to do that in the Northern Territory? If not, it might be a good time now to do something about that. I would appreciate it if you could give an answer to that in your reply. As Philip Swann also said, at the end of the day these tests are about road safety, not drug taking.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill with those two reservations that I have identified that I would like to see strengthened.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill; it is a positive change. I note that one of the changes has been the simplification of the rules in relation to breath testing. It is much clearer for people who are trying to understand what the legislation means.
The area that I am concerned about is the bit you have left off; that we do not have random drug testing. Chief Minister, in your second reading speech, you said a number of things. Random …
Ms Lawrie: I am not the Chief Minister. I could not hear you. I am having difficulty hearing you. Could you speak up a bit?
Mr WOOD: I shall speak louder.
Madam SPEAKER: The noise is from the re-cabling project, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: The area I am concerned about is the section you have left out - random drug tests, similar to random alcohol tests. You said in your second reading speech:
- Recent drug use studies have also shown that cannabinoids are present in a significant proportion of drivers killed and injured in road accidents.
You quote Lenne 2004:
- results from the Victorian drug testing program after 12 months of operation reveal that one car driver in 40 and one truck driver in 69 are driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol.
Further, you said:
There have been a number of serious accidents in the Northern Territory, some involving fatalities, where the police know drugs were a feature of the accident ...
You also said:
Why should the wider community in the Territory have to put up with drivers taking drugs and driving on our roads, with apparent impunity from the consequences of their behaviour?
Then, you introduced legislation which is, basically, to cover some random breath tests for drivers of heavy vehicles 4.5 tonnes and greater where they actually submit a saliva test. However, we have not done it for the people you spoke about in your second reading speech. That is a big gap.
There may be issues of how much that would cost. I understand in an area as big as the Territory that that may be a problem. When you take into account the statements you have made, and the emphasis that you have shown us on the fact that drugs are a major problem on the roads, I feel it is a bit late to be testing drivers after they have had an accident. That is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. You say that you can test a driver if the police officer thinks that person is a risk. However, a police officer has to see that happening somewhere to do that whereas, at a random alcohol testing - or if we had a random drug testing - facility, you would not have to worry about the police accidentally finding someone who looks like they might be at high risk driving. Therefore, whilst I support what the government is trying to do, and this is bringing legislation up to a standard that I presume is in most states, I believe there certainly is a gap.
I believe that what you have done is good. The other point is that demerit points are not included in these offences. I do not want to harp too much on the commentary made when I referred to hoon legislation, in relation to when we are ever going to get back to confiscating vehicles at the first offence as in other states. I will get on to that at some other debate at some other time. However, you said to me: ‘We have demerit points!’ No, no, no. You have demerit points there when I do not think they need to be there. Just take the car away. What we want in the hoon legislation is to get the noise and the kids off the road.
Here is a serious offence and, for some reason, these serious offences do not seem to attract demerit points. I am interested to know why, because we certainly have plenty of demerit points for other things, like speeding and anything to do with an offence which has a fair amount of risk to either the driver or other people on the road. Here is another example of an area where drivers and other road users are at risk and, yet, we do not include demerit points in the punishment of those offences.
Besides all that, Madam Speaker, I support the legislation.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank members opposite for their support of this legislation. It is part of a raft of changes the government has been introducing to improve road safety across the Territory. It was a recommendation contained within the Road Safety Task Force report, and the passage of this legislation today will meet that commitment of government to introduce it.
It goes without saying, to an extent, that we have not had a drug testing regime for drivers on Territory roads. Sitting where I have been and understanding the work of the task force and the implementation team within government and the agencies involved in this, I have come to appreciate just how complex and difficult it has been to identify and provide a testing regime that will be robust. The understanding that I have come to is that it would be a better regime to introduce, as it is completely new, in the context of erratic driver behaviour. The police have been chasing the need to test at the scene of the accident for a long time. I take on board what the member for Nelson said; that it is not preventative but, in a sense, it becomes preventative because they are brought to account for the contributing factor to the accident. The offences will, for the first time, be applying that have not applied in the past, so it is pretty critical.
In talking to the people who are involved in, if you like, the on-the-ground implementation of the scheme, the health professionals and the police, who are at the forefront of doing the work on the ground, believe that the scheme, as presented and provided for in the legislation, will be effective. They certainly are looking forward to being able to drug test erratic drivers for the first time in the history of the Territory. They are certainly very much looking forward to being able to drug test people at the scene of the accident.
This is a quantum leap forward, Madam Speaker. We have not had a regime of this nature in the Territory before. There is a saying ‘you have to learn to walk before you can run’. We are not considering random testing for right across the spectrum as the CLP and the member for Nelson have asked for in this debate today, because we are walking through a brand new whole testing regime and system.
There is an exception to that. The exception was, I guess, really magnified in the contribution by the member for Katherine. Trucks are on the road 24/7, and they are a very large beast of a moving vehicle and can certainly create incredible carnage on our roads. I have had a very close working relationship with the Australian Trucking Association. Peter Goad has spoken to me on a number of occasions about the integrity of safety within the freight industry, and particularly the trucking industry, right across the nation. We, in a far greater sense than many jurisdictions, rely on the trucks for delivering produce to our markets. The trucking association approached me, as minister, when they became aware that I was working up legislation for drug testing of drivers. They said: ‘We have a zero tolerance policy in the trucking industry. Good employers enforce that and do testing of drivers. It would help us as an industry if you could include those heavy vehicles in a random drug testing capacity’.
I sought advice on that, and the advice that came back was that that would be a good way to progress and move forward, and would be something that the police would be capable of doing. Therefore, we have inserted random only for those heavy vehicles at the request of the trucking industry to recognise that trucks are quite a different category of movement on our roads. They are moving at night, during the day, and on long hauls. Sadly, in the past there has been a bit of a drug culture amongst drivers or truckies. I am pretty confident that that culture is actually being drummed out of the industry by the employers. The industry has taken a very strong stance in that regard. I have had the pleasure of working with the trucking industry for a couple of years. I am impressed by the efforts of those freight owners and family trucking owners who are going to ensure that they are as safe as possible in their industry. Trucks, by their sheer size, are incredibly dangerous users of our road networks, but they are important and critical users of that network.
Whilst I welcome the support, I will have to agree to disagree on the nature of introducing this brand new regime in a random manner across the Territory. I am very interested to see how it beds down. I am very interested to see results of its use. We have a road safety coordination group across government which provides for an opportunity for our health professionals, transport professionals, police professionals and others to come together and understand how the task force recommendations that we have been implementing are actually working on the ground and to evaluate that. I believe that that would be important; to assess and see how this brand new system and regime of drug testing of drivers in the Territory comes in and how it operates and the effects of that. I believe this will be a weapon in the armoury to save lives of Territorians.
I am confident that the message going out there - and like any new regime you have to raise public awareness of it - will be a very strong message to drivers: you can no longer put other peoples’ lives at risk in the Territory by taking drugs and driving, that there is a penalty and offence regime in place. We have a testing regime that will be in place. I say to people that, if they think they can take drugs and not drive erratically, they are kidding themselves. If you look at the schedule of drugs that are being applied and tested in this regime, there will be erratic driving behaviour from people driving after taking those drugs. We are being quite targeted; we understand the nature of the drugs we put on the testing regime and the consequences to the behaviour of drivers who take those drugs. I am pretty confident, as Transport minister, that tackling the point of erratic driving behaviour and of accidents will actually start to capture those recidivous drug takers who want to put other peoples’ lives at risk.
Yet, it will not capture people who are driving appropriately, who get pulled up at a random alcohol station, the RBTs, who happen to be on a range of different prescription pills because of a particular illness they have. This system is not designed to capture those people and it will not capture those people.
I have concerns, as minister, that if we introduced a random system, straight off the bat today, as called for by the members opposite, we would be capturing innocent people in our community; we would be capturing people who have suffered significant illness and, quite appropriately, are on certain prescription drugs in battling their illness. They would be pulled up randomly. I do not think that that is appropriate. That is not the sort of legislation that I would be looking for. There are some aspects of the random call that would need to be very seriously thought through, because you could actually start to capture the wrong people.
I am pretty confident of the amount of work that police, and Health particularly, have gone to in concert with the Transport division to really look at how a regime can be effective and implemented to save lives, and pick up those dangerous recidivists who think that they can take illicit and illegal drugs and get out on our roads and drive. Those are the sort of people this legislation is designed to tackle - those erratic drivers who are off their heads on illegal drugs who think they can go out there and put other people’s lives at risk. I am not, at this stage, prepared to pass the net wider than that, as is being called for by the opposition and the member for Nelson. I believe we have come up with a very fair and sensible approach to the issue of drug-driving.
I urge the members opposite to continue to seek updates and briefings from me on how the system is being operated in the Territory, in about six months or a year. I will be getting information through and I am happy to provide advice to the members opposite. However, I believe the legislation is robust and, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to introduce it in a random nature.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. As we have an amendment, I propose we move into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move that proposed section 29AAM(1) is amended by omitting the words:
- to have a sample of blood taken for this Act,
and substituting:
- for the purpose of having a sample of blood taken for analysis to determine if the person’s blood contains a prohibited drug,
Section 29AAM provides the power to suspend a licence for 24 hours. This amendment corrects the drafting error that had the unintended consequence of extending a specific power for police dealing with a person obviously impaired by drugs to an extent to the advantage of the public, following a positive blood test for drugs. The consequence was that this power, intended only for drugs, could also be applied for blood tests for alcohol. The amendment restricts the power to suspend a licence for 24 hours to apply only in circumstances where police reasonably believe that the person’s blood may contain a prohibited drug or substance to such an extent that they should not drive. It does not apply in the case of alcohol. Police will continue to use long-established protocols when dealing with blood tests for alcohol.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2007-08
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2007-08
Continued from 29 November 2007.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset, as probably members opposite would predict, this will be a usual attack on the fact that government’s income sources continue to grow without restraint, and that this government is now the beneficiary of $1.2bn extra this year than it had when the last CLP was in office in 2000-01. So that members are aware, the last CLP government had a budget of $2.2bn, and the projection in this mid-year report is $3.5bn. That is an increase of $1.2bn.
Members opposite, with a shallow glance, would make the assumption that they have done a wonderful job in getting all this extra money. Some of it they have through stamp duty receipts from the booming housing industry. They have harvested richly from the increased value of the transactions garnered by way of stamp duty. Further to that it is the GST, which is largely derived from the wealth of the nation, which is channelled, fortunately, into the Territory to deliver services necessary in a very difficult jurisdiction.
We need to talk about another aspect. Whilst we acknowledge the government’s expenditure across a range of areas, the government has increased spending substantially on health, education has received a substantial boost, policing also has received an extraordinary amount of money, and the waterfront is costing much more than the originally anticipated $100m. This is the privilege - the enviable position - of a government with huge amounts of cash. There could be a different scenario; there could be a different time. If you are a student of history, you will see it was not always so. However, at this particular point in time there is that growth, that strength which is resulting in cash flowing into the Territory economy, providing that capacity to spend. It may not always be the case.
As a government, you get to decide what you want to spend money on - that is your prerogative. You can spend it on programs or you can use it to retire debts such as superannuation debts. Superannuation debt is subject to variables, some of which the government can control to some degree such as wages growth, and others the government has less control over such as longer than expected survival rates. Good thing! What is clear recently, however, is that government has been saddled with a much greater debt than their 2002-03 forecast predicted. I note that the government has put money against this debt and the super fund 1% of what it needs to deal with superannuation debt. What all this proves is that government has the capacity to spend money, and everyone would easily make that assumption.
What is of concern and what I want to talk about is the method that government is choosing to spend that money, and the decision-making process that the government employs to spend that money.
Recently, I had the good fortune of reading a Cabinet submission. Good heavens! I know I am not supposed to see Cabinet submissions but, because there are so many of them flying around, every so often we on this side of the House get a chance to have a peek. Without reflecting on the nature of the submission, because that would probably result in some manhunt - or woman-hunt, so that covers it up there, it narrows it down, widens it out. That will only serve, of course, to get this public servant into trouble. However, it is more important to reflect on what flows from the observations gained by looking at a Cabinet submission.
Though it may suit the government’s agenda to try to paint the four members over here in the corner as the last bastion of some evil empire that once existed in the Northern Territory, and that I am a part of a former government - I was not, I was sitting on the backbench over there observing in the last days of the CLP. Nonetheless, I had enough advice to understand how the Cabinet process worked in the managing of requests that are made through the Cabinet process – and that is the point that I would like to make here.
The matter of consideration is that the submission was a matter of a policy that should have been made known to government, or at least the CEO of that department which had carriage of that issue. Each year, the department CEOs, I understand, are supposed to go to their ministers by their own motion to formulate the plan for the year. This plan will contain what the department or minister wants to achieve in the next 12 months and, then, the minister is supposed to go into the Budget Cabinet and fight for funding to have those goals achieved. It is called forward planning, which will require a level of preparation and agreement on strategic plans and a submission based on a commitment to a known plan. That is understandable. That is how I understand the process is to work. The Territory budget is formulated on this process. That is called strategic planning, when you have Budget Cabinet when, I am sure, that is when all these matters are resolved.
I am going to the point that, what we see is the Treasurer comes into this place, asks the House to pass a law to get the Central Holding Authority to release over $3bn so that government services may be provided, based on the plans that have been presented and ticked off through the Budget Cabinet process.
This place, the parliament, then goes through that process of testing each minister about what they want the money for and what they have done with the money in the past. It makes sense. That is called the estimates process. Then, the House re-forms and, under normal circumstances, the law is passed and then the money is released, on behalf of the good people of the Northern Territory. That is the job that we have here.
However, I notice that this mid-year report betrayed the fact that the process is a little skewed, something that is evidenced by the Cabinet submission that I referred to earlier – the fact that, again, the Treasurer’s Advance has been emptied around Christmas time, and what has happened in this report. I draw members’ attention to page 6 of the report. I note that, in the general government sector cash flow statement on page 28, unbudgeted income growth has been $167m. I accept not all of that is discretionary funding. On page 6, however, there is an explanation of the increased and unbudgeted income growth. Part of the growth is SPPs worth $62.2m. There is nothing that the government can do about that because that money is off budget and tied to projects specific to the funding source; namely, the federal government. However, I do note talk from the new Labor government that they are going to review SPPs and that there will be a new arrangement so that these SPPs can be brought - well, in my view, I think they should be brought back - into closer marrying of the projects of government. There is a new approach that will be taken by the Rudd government, I understand, and I am looking forward to seeing what that will mean. However, I move on.
We are not really talking about SPPs in this case. Page 6 also points out that Territory taxation has risen by $19.9m, the GST income has risen by $51m, and royalties have increased by $27.4m. It would be fair to say that if government’s planning was tracking well – this is the point - then the projected budgetary deficit of $40.109m in the original budget papers would be wiped out. However, it is not. The mid-year review said that the projected deficit for this year is $40.057m, almost exactly what was projected in the budget. I am wondering if you are following this. There has been an extraordinary increase in unexpected income over and above that which was expected, but the deficit remains the same. How is that? Where does the leakage occur? We are going back to the point of planning.
You know all about it. Yes, roll your eyes: ‘This bloke does not know what he is talking about. I do. Listen to me. I am the best Treasurer ever’. We will see. I am looking forward to your response, Treasurer.
What this means is that all the extra discretionary money has been spent or will be spent, the shortfall - the difference between the two - has gone. It has been spent. I go back to the point of the Cabinet submission that floated by. Basically, it goes on to explain generally where the extra money has gone, but it does not go into detail. Of the $27.4m earmarked for expenditure in the area of Closing the Gap response, it merely uses the term ‘including’.
When we go through the budget process, the Treasurer asks us for $40m extra for ‘just-in-case money’. This is listed on page 63 of Budget Paper No 3 as Treasurer’s Advance. This is the piggy bank for the unexpected. It is not unlike a household budget that keeps a little to the side for an unexpected spending such as a car broken down or, in our case, a washing machine. The government equivalent of a car breaking down is a flood or a cyclone and damage that they can cause. You need some reserves, a capacity to draw when you have the unexpected and the unplanned.
In a perfect world, when this budgetary cycle is over that money should be there because departments and ministers have lived within their budgets. They have set their plans and they are established; they live within those budgets and the unexpected can be responded to by the reserves, the Central Holding Authority - the extra. However, that money - the Treasurer’s Advance - was spent around Christmas time as the Treasurer notified this House that he was using the advance. The excuse on page 6 for the overspend also hints of the central problem. It says that Closing the Gap was an off-budget spend. The Treasurer simply cannot be suggesting that the government did not know that they were going to have commitments in this area when they were putting the budget together. Is that the case? You did not know that you were going to have to spend that amount of money?
Sadly, there are other explanations that make sense. This includes two important things: first, that Closing the Gap was a response to a political situation that had formed and there was initially no intention to spend that money; and second, that this government is very prepared to make expensive policy decisions on the run, going to the core of the planning - forward planning, rigour and discipline. Also from the Cabinet submissions that I have seen, items that should have been budgeted for because either the CEO or the minister knew that there was a policy item in the pipeline were not budgeted for. This demonstrates a capacity for ministers to be less than conscientious in their planning for the year ahead knowing that Cabinet will be forgiving: ‘There is plenty of money around, mount the right argument and we can get some’.
It is taking the rigour from the planning process and inserting it all the way along the line. You can ask for money because there is more money there. What I am concerned about is the internal rigour of commitment. To a set plan is fine in times of plenty but not so in times where there is less, when there is a downturn, when there is a change. You cannot charter your course according to here and now, thinking that this is going to be the only scenario that you will face. There have been tougher times where things have not been so strong and the cash has not flowed in such abundance. The point here is the rigor within the system.
In the policy items before the House at the moment, there is no line item in the budget for youth camps. The words ‘youth camp’ do not appear anywhere in Budget Paper No 3. In fact, the only promise that hints at youth camps are the youth development units referred to in the budget speech. If the youth camps are being funded by that money, then somebody else is going to miss out; that is the nature of planning. However, the likely source of the money is some of the new money that has come to us in the form of extra GST and own source revenue. Is this the way we will be chartering our course? That is what we need to know. That is what opposition can see as our obligation to draw attention to these matters.
Currently before this House, we have just discussed it, is the drug-driving bill. I would expect, and it would not be unreasonable to assume, that the Commissioner for Police is going to seek extra money to make that happen. This has not been mentioned in the budget process. Surely, the Treasurer knew this was going to be a part of the planning for the year. Or is it the case that government woke up one morning and said: ‘Oh, I have a good idea, let us go and do it’. I ask the minister how much the drug-driving policy is going to cost? I estimate it will be in the order of between $0.75m to $1m to establish and, annually, another $0.25m or $0.50m for current - not sure. We need that sort of information to see what sort of systems we really are running and whether we are prepared for difficult times.
The point is that either the minister or the commissioner, in all likelihood, did not mention this in the Budget Cabinet process. If not, why not? It is difficult to imagine the minister or the minister’s CEO was unaware that this policy was in the pipeline. The problem for government is that this has become the standard way to do business. There are Cabinet submissions after Cabinet submissions going to the government with costs attached to them that did not go through the proper budgetary processes, and they are worth at least $27.4m this year alone. It does not sound like much. In the real world, that sort of money will build you a school, perhaps like the one that was promised in Rosebery. That would be a very good example and a good use of that money if it had not been used for unplanned expenditure with Cabinet submissions upon Cabinet submissions and the contests that go on within Cabinet to get their little projects funded and supported outside the rigours of the Budget Cabinet.
The Financial Management Act allows the Treasurer to overspend the appropriation by 5% before the Treasurer has to come back into this place and ask for some more cash. Allowing for the effect of SPP, that means that the government can track to a position of being about $150m off course this year before they have to come back in here. Considering that the government, in the Treasurer’s Advance, already has $40m to play with, it means that the government can overdo it, in my estimation, by about $200m before there are any red flags here for us to look at.
Ms Lawrie: Maybe that is what you lot did.
Mr MILLS: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Maybe that is what you lot did. Maybe that is why you got yourself into trouble.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: That is a lot of money and it is that discretion that sees the government taking a cavalier approach to the management of the Territory’s budget. Each time they are bailed out by money that drops out from the ether and that they did not budget for or did not expect to get. It is the equivalent of a person spending money on a credit card hoping that they will get a raise each year. Amazingly in this case, this Labor government has been able to get a raise each year. Imagine if they had managed to achieve what they set out to achieve and scuttled the GST before they won government.
Listening to the Chief Minister wax lyrical about proving financial management in an environment of spending that is so unrestrained and unplanned, it is not like someone who is disloyal, waxing about loyalty. However, it does raise questions about the integrity of the budget process and it leaves me wondering what this lot opposite would do if they actually had to manage a budget because the tide went out on the sea of gold if circumstances changed. That is the consideration sitting beneath these comments. You may pick small points on this and you may ride over the top or ignore it, but these are concerns. It is easy to manage in times of plenty, but these are the times to prepare for the other cycle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I finish with a simple question. The government was recently ordered to pay back – I think it was $50m - in an unlawfully collected stamp duty from a single taxpayer. What is the status of that matter? Does it appear anywhere in our budget, or was that money held off account until the matter was settled? I need clarification on that.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution in relation to the mid-year report is that we are a government that just spends its way through the good times, and woe betide the Territory if we are ever a government in the bad times. Well, you have a very short memory. When this government came into power in 2001 we were absolutely in the depths of the bad times.
I take my hat off to the former Treasurer because, to climb out of those bad times from 2001 to 2003-04 was incredibly hard, and only occurred because of the strength of the fiscal management applied by the Treasurer and the entire Cabinet team. We applied funding to ensure that we were stimulating growth into projects that, at the time, the opposition complained about and wanted to knock. We knew that to climb out of the bad times we had to stimulate growth. Our construction sector was on its knees; subbies were leaving town; families were being split up because someone had to find work because there was no work to be found in the Territory.
Now we have significant growth in our economy and employment. We are bucking national trends and, yes, we have a strength underpinning our economy that has come through the resources boom. However, the growth first appeared in our construction sector, and that was because government put cash into record after record infrastructure spends. We identified where the need was to stimulate the economy and we went after it. At the same time, we paid significant attention to encouraging growth in our employment sector industries and, in tourism, we went out aggressively with tourism marketing campaigns to bring the people back to town because we had been hit hard with a collapse in tourism in the Territory. Our second largest industry was on its knees when we came to government in 2001.
We went out and sold to the mining sector - to the prospective players out there - the opportunities of the resources in the Territory, after the previous government had refused to sign off on exploration licences because they were locked into an ideological war about native title. We pursued ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw attention to this. As I understand it, this is to be called a debate. It seems that the response does not match at all the comments that have been raised. I would not call it a debate; it is just two parallel discussions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Blain. Treasurer, please resume.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, and to refresh the short-term memory loss that seems to be here, as I said at the outset, the entire thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution to the mid-year report was about ‘We can manage in good times, we can manage in times of riches, but woe behold us if we are in the bad times’. I am talking specifically about the bad times in 2001 to 2003-04, and how strong targeted fiscal management from the Labor government helped us climb out of it. Own source revenue is up, and the Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution, recognised that. Well, you do not get an improvement in own source revenue if you have not been stimulating your economy.
Yes, we have benefited from GST. What really struck me in the contribution was that the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘GST derived from the wealth of the nation channelled into the Territory’. Actually, that is our fair share. We have taxpayers in the Territory, we have a recognised need in the Territory, and we get our share of the GST. I will go to Canberra and I will fight for an increased share of the GST, because that is the right of the Territory. I am not going to sit back and say: ‘Sorry, New South Wales and Victoria, you can take more because I think you deserve more’. I would be a fool of a Treasurer if I had that line.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to step away from saying we are getting the nation’s wealth. We are punching above our weight in exports. The contribution we are making in exports, off the back of our mineral wealth, off the back of our gas exports, is going into the nation’s coffers. I, for one, am happy to go down there and get our share of the GST that is dollars our nation is earning off the back of the wealth being drawn out of the Territory in our exports.
The flight of fancy that the Leader of the Opposition would have us entertain regarding the budget process and how Cabinet submissions occur, just beggars belief. If we were to follow the process that he thinks we ought to be following, we would be in all sorts of strife. It made me start to come to terms and realise how the previous CLP ministers must have got themselves into strife if that was the extent of their planning for the budget.
Underpinning the thrust of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution was his notion that time stops from May to May, that things do not change, that there are no key initiatives, key priorities, or key opportunities for government to grasp through Cabinet decision-making processes; that we can sit back and say: ‘Well, we had the Little Children are Sacred Report, but let us not do anything about that until the following budget. Let us just say, no, we are not going to attend to additional policing, additional housing, or additional education in the bush, and we are not going to put any more child protection workers out there because - oh look at that - it is not May’. It is nonsense, Leader of the Opposition. Your premise that we should be frozen in time from May to May and not have initiatives between budgets is an absolute nonsense.
The time of planning predates budget periods. The planning that goes into - and I know from when I was the Minister for Family and Community Services, regarding the Little Children are Sacred report initiatives were commitments in Closing the Gap. We were planning those 18 months in advance of Closing the Gap being delivered, not in the months after the May budget - a long time before the May budget we were planning them specifically to address the Little Children are Sacred report. That was not to say we were not getting other initiatives out the door – we were. However, we absolutely knew that we had to reframe and reshape an entire child protection system, and we were not going to do that ahead of recommendations of an independent inquiry. It would have been nonsense to do that.
I have seen the way whole-of-government pulled together across all agencies on Closing the Gap. I saw the way Treasury was able to work with each of the individual agencies in understanding the complex array of options that we had before us. I am proud that the mid-year report represents that significant investment in Closing the Gap. I am proud that this Territory government is using the opportunity of a growing economy to deliver services for Territorians because, fundamentally, that is what they expect of government. They say: ‘You take our taxes, you regulate, and we want, in return, better education for our children, better health systems for the aged, for the young, and for families right across the Territory - right across the Territory’. They want to live in a society where they know there are police out there on the beat, right across the Territory.
Yes, government’s role is to provide services and more opportunities to provide services are brought about through strong and sound financial management, which is exactly the path that this government has been on since 2001, which is exactly the task that I, as Treasurer, will be focused on because we do not sit there and plan from year to year. We do not sit there and think, ‘Well, we are okay this year, so let us go and spend and do not worry about next year’. We plan in five- and 10-year periods. We do forward projections. We understand our revenues, we understand our expenditure, and we do not risk during the good times entering into bad times. That is poor financial management, and we will not do that.
I am convinced that the team of the Under Treasurer and her Treasury officials are very capable of providing the advice government needs to stay on track. I get that advice regularly. I test every single idea that comes forward. Ideas are great. Ideas are exactly what fuels our great Territory. I am not going to say to business, as Infrastructure minister: ‘Do not come in my door with your ideas because it is not budget time’. I am not going to say to the school system: ‘It does not matter if you have had a need there, do not come knocking on my door until it is budget time’. I am not going to say Catholic Education Office: ‘It is not budget time, so do not come and have a chat to me about where you want to build additional schools’. Ideas develop the Territory.
What I will say is we will absolutely test every single idea down to the greatest detail. We will test it across the agencies. We will test it across industry. Financially we will run our experts right across it, and it will only get up and only be resourced if it meets all of those tests.
There is a strong fiscal regime that has been in place since the former Treasurer took the helm, and I wish to follow in his legacy. He did a great job of staying focused on delivering services to Territorians right across the Territory, providing an environment of growth for business and industry - an environment that encourages the diversity of industry, which is a sound financial basis in which to proceed forward. We are not going to put all of our eggs into the minerals boom basket. The Leader of the Opposition, in the previous debate, referred to all of the eggs in the China basket. That was a reference to the nation. That was not a reference to the Territory alone.
We are entering into what is described as a refreshing phase. It is a very exciting phase in the financial outlook of the Territory, but that brings with it a compelling requirement to keep fiscal management tight - and we will. We will not squander the opportunity of today. What we will do is use the opportunity of today to create far greater opportunities for tomorrow for business, for community and for Territorians right across the Territory.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Fishing: The Lure of the Territory
Fishing: The Lure of the Territory
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that fishing is the lure of the Territory. Not only does it contribute to our unique lifestyle, but it is also a significant driver of our economy - and that includes both recreational and commercial sectors. That is why a fundamental responsibility of government is to ensure the sustainability of our aquatic resources so that recreational fishing opportunities will be enjoyed by Territorians into the future, and that the jobs and economic development flowing from our recreational and commercial fishing industries continue to flourish.
My department’s Fisheries Group is charged with the responsibility of managing our fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner. The department provides high-quality research and management advice on which we can base decisions that ensure the ongoing sustainable management of our fisheries.
Working closely with key stakeholder groups, fisheries management measures are developed for the aim of ensuring not only the sustainability of our fish stocks but also the maintenance of high-quality recreational fishing experiences. We all recognise that recreational fishing is a key part of our unique Territory lifestyle. With such pristine waters holding abundant fish stocks and aquatic life, we have a recreational fishing lifestyle that is the envy of the rest of Australia. With that comes the responsibility of properly managing these resources, now and into the future, for all Territorians.
Of course, the key iconic recreational species of the Territory is the mighty barramundi. Locals and tourists alike will invest vast amounts of time and effort for this prize catch. It remains a priority of government to protect this valuable species. We will continue to use management tools such as commercial licence numbers, gear restrictions, minimum size requirements, and seasonal closures to guarantee stock sustainability.
Key amongst our efforts to enhance the recreational fishing experience has been the closure of the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers in 2002 and 2004, respectively, to commercial barramundi fishing. The closure to commercial netters has allowed the reallocation of the resource in these areas to benefit recreational anglers. These closures also include the buy-back of two commercial barramundi fishing licences, to ensure that fishing pressure was simply not redistributed and concentrated in other parts of the fishery.
Given the importance of barramundi to the Territory, we are developing a five-year plan, 10-year vision for the management of the fishery, and that includes the capacity for further licence buy-back initiatives, in line with our 2005 election commitments.
It should be noted that changes to the barramundi fishery cannot be finalised until the Blue Mud Bay decision has been dealt with. As I indicated at the AFANT AGM on Sunday, this government’s position on the Blue Mud Bay case is clear. We do not agree with the Blue Mud Bay decision handed down by the Federal Court and that is why we are appealing it to the High Court. The Territory government remains opposed to recreational fishing permits and licences. In the meantime, temporary arrangements have been put in place for the grant of permits and licences at no cost to commercial and recreational fishers. When the decision is brought down, we will be in a position to move forward on our plans for the barramundi fishery. In the meantime, we will continue to work with all stakeholder groups to ensure the sustainable management of the fishery.
In addition to managing our wild barramundi fishery resources, this government has provided additional recreational barramundi fishing opportunities through suitable stocked impoundments. Over 300 000 fingerlings have been stocked in Manton Dam and Lake Todd. These stock impoundments provide future alternative options for recreational fishermen in the Territory. In particular, Manton Dam is already reaping the benefits of past stockings, with regular reports of barramundi over the 1 m mark being caught. Negotiations are continuing with the Jawoyn people, the traditional owners of Lake Todd, to work towards the opening up of the lake as another alternative for recreational fishers.
Barrier nets have also been installed to contain barramundi in stock impoundments, thereby maximising the opportunity for anglers to land a trophy fish. More than $1m has been committed to the buy-back of commercial licences to provide greater opportunities for anglers as well as helping to sustain the commercial catch. Recreational fishers will benefit from our recent success negotiating the buy-back of nine inshore coastal net licences as part of the scheme. The significant buy-back of licences removes commercial fishing effort from the potential harvest of key recreational species, including blue salmon and queenfish.
Importantly, the removal of these licences also reduces the impact on barramundi food sources, such as mullet and garfish, thereby providing added benefit overall to the barramundi life cycle, and that of all recreational species. With the removal of these licences, we have met a significant election commitment and closed Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to all forms of inshore commercial coastal net fishing. This is a real winner for recreational anglers, particularly as Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay are the most popular fishing destinations in the Territory. Surveys of anglers have revealed that almost half of all the fishing effort throughout the Territory is undertaken in Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay and, of some interest, three-quarters of anglers were local residents.
To further add to the Territory recreational fishing experience, I have made it a priority to expand the artificial reef network in and around Darwin Harbour. Recently, a large illegal foreign fishing vessel, the Medkehanun III, was scuttled expanding the Song Saigon artificial reef site in Darwin Harbour. I am pleased to say that AFANT sourced $10 000 which contributed towards the preparation of this vessel. I thank the Darwin Harbourmaster and his staff for his valuable assistance with the towing and scuttling of the Medkehanun III. The scuttling of an illegal foreign fishing vessel also sends a clear message to those contemplating similar illegal fishing activities in our waters; that with their actions comes severe consequences.
In addition, three decommissioned vessels were added to two of the three artificial reef sites near Lee Point. These more recent additions, along with the previous sinking of the Kay Lee in 2006 greatly enhanced the Lee Point reef complex. Now, anglers can enjoy a larger selection of artificial reef structures within easy reach for small boats. The Lee Point artificial reef complex is also within easy reach of the Nightcliff boat ramp, and regularly rewards anglers with great catches of jewfish, snapper and mackerel, amongst other species.
In recreational fishing infrastructure, this government has continued to pave the way for new boat ramps and recreational fishing access to remote areas. Government currently maintains 26 boat ramps across the Territory as well as platforms, jetties, and artificial reefs which provide access to all boat users. Infrastructure projects to date undertaken by this government include upgrades to the Mule Creek, Rocky Creek, Dinah Beach, Buffalo Creek, Nightcliff and Mandorah boat ramps.
Tenders have been called for the construction of a $2.8m state-of-the-art boat ramp to be built at Hudson Creek near East Arm in Darwin Harbour. The ramp will be accessible to Darwin, Palmerston and rural residents and will provide improved access to Darwin Harbour. When completed, anglers should be able to launch and retrieve their boats in as little as 1.5 m of water instead of the 3 m which is suggested for the launching at the nearby ramp at East Arm. Tenders have also been called for the reconstructed boat ramp on the coast near Channel Point. Facilities will include a fenced access easement, a camping ground and a formed concrete ramp. Tenders close at the end of February with the construction anticipated during this Dry Season. A floating jetty is also to be installed at Dinah Beach to allow anglers to secure their boats while moving their trailers. It is timely to install a floating jetty, given the enormous popularity of the ramp and usage following the upgrade taken by this government.
A new Recreational Fishing Access Working Group has been established which includes senior executive officers of relevant agencies with a direct responsibility for identifying and coordinating new fishing access and infrastructure projects. AFANT has also been afforded membership to provide advice on anglers’ needs when it comes to recreational fishing access and infrastructure. To further support the needs of recreational fishermen in the Territory, the Fisheries Group has also established a dedicated Recreational Fishing Unit comprising three full-time recreational fishing officers. This group deals with all matters related to recreational fishing, including logistical support for fishing tournaments, education, junior fishing workshops, impoundment stocking and coordination of our highly successful Riverwatch program.
Junior recreational fishing workshops are held in Nhulunbuy and Katherine to promote recreational fishing and provide education on the importance of handling fish correctly and respecting our natural environment.
The Territory’s lifestyle not only incorporates great leisure activities such as recreational fishing, but also includes the availability of local premium Northern Territory seafood. In this respect, our commercial fisheries and aquaculture industries play a very important role in maintaining our Territory lifestyle. A precautionary approach in managing our natural resources, combined with the willingness of our commercial fisheries to work together for the long term, has enabled our own local industry to stand against the trends in other states.
Our commercial fisheries remain viable for the benefit of all Territorians and visitors alike. As you would be aware, in the Territory you can still go down to your local fish and chip shop and purchase fresh, premium-quality locally-caught fish or choose a tropical snapper or barra from the menu at one of our many restaurants. With this in mind, it is worth considering the significant contribution both the recreational and commercial fishing industries, as well as aquaculture, make to our thriving economy in jobs and maintaining the Territory lifestyle we all enjoy.
Recreational fishing makes a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory’s economy, with $34.7m of the Territory’s annual tourist income derived from recreational fishing. In addition, the Northern Territory has the greatest number per capita of recreational fishers, and the highest level of boat ownership in Australia.
At the same time, it is also important to recognise the contribution made to our economy through commercial fishing. Some 1450 people are employed in the commercial seafood industry, with a gross value of production at the first point of sale at around $30m. Along with the indirect benefits through the major support and maintenance industry sectors, the value of the seafood industry to the Northern Territory economy is significant. We also recognise the important contribution made by the respective stakeholder organisations.
This government continues to support recreational fishing through ongoing funding to the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, or AFANT. This year, we will provide approximately $200 000 to enable the association to continue to employ its executive officer and its office assistant to administer the small grants program for fishing clubs.
While on the subject of support, the government has provided $40 000 to the Northern Territory Guided Fishing Industry Association for the past three years to enable the employment of its executive officer and payment of its business costs. This is an important industry to the Territory, catering for the increased tourist market. In 2006, over 20 000 visitors came to the Territory and booked a fishing charter or guided fishing tour. Visiting anglers can enjoy a day on the water, or an extended fishing trip with an expert fishing guide aiming to catch prized barramundi or any other of our exciting game fish species. Of some interest, visiting or out-of-state anglers contribute around 30% of total expenditure on recreational fishing in the Territory compared to 8% nationally. We are also a nett importer of fishing tourists, with more than 100 000 visitors saying that they go fishing during their stay.
The Northern Territory Seafood Council is also supported in representing its members through an annual grant of $180 000 from government. The Seafood Council has demonstrated a willingness to work with government and other key stakeholders in ensuring the sustainability of our fisheries resources. To this end, my Fisheries Group is charged with the responsibility of managing our fisheries in a sustainable and responsible manner. They provide high-quality research and management advice upon which we can base decisions that ensure the ongoing sustainable management of our fisheries, including recreational fishing.
During our time in government, we have progressed greatly in addressing sustainability concerns and adopting an ecologically sustainable development approach to the management of our valuable aquatic resources. This can be clearly demonstrated through the national recognition and accreditation of all of our export fisheries under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Northern Territory has been awarded the greatest proportion of the highest level accreditation for the way in which we manage our fisheries. These accreditations are essentially a green tick of approval, and allow these fisheries to export seafood products, providing certainty and security to commercial fishers, processors, exporters and the general community.
Our wild capture fisheries are regularly reviewed, with participation from all stakeholder groups to ensure we apply appropriate, adaptive fisheries management. There are many examples of where we have implemented progressive fisheries management measures to meet export accreditation needs and ensure the biological, economic and social sustainability of each fishery. During our term, the barramundi, Spanish mackerel, mud crab, offshore net and line, and aquarium fisheries in particular, have undergone significant progressive management changes. I will not go into the details today, but the accreditations I have outlined make it clear that we have made the right decisions at the right time to ensure a prosperous sustainable future of our fisheries.
At this point, I should also raise the measures undertaken by this government with respect to working with our federal government counterparts to reduce the impact of illegal foreign fishing. There is no question that successful lobbying from this government has led to increased surveillance in our northern borders by the lead agency, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. We should not be complacent about the effects of illegal foreign fishing on our local fish stocks. Available estimates suggest that, in the past, the illegal harvest of shark has been up to 12 times higher than the legitimate catch by Northern Territory licensed fishers. Initiatives to ensure the sustainability of our stocks were being eroded by illegal and unregulated foreign fishing catchers. Illegal foreign fishing not only threatens our productive recreation and commercial fisheries but also our native flora and fauna through the introduction of aquatic pests and potential spread of disease. Now, with increased surveillance, the number of illegal incursions has dramatically declined. We will continue to work closely with our federal counterparts to ensure the surveillance continues and our rich aquatic resources are protected.
To provide recreational fishing information and a mechanism through which fishers can report issues of concern, government continues to support nine Riverwatch centres at the Roper, Daly, Mary, McArthur, Victoria and the South and East Alligator Rivers. These centres also provide literature on a range of aquatic environmental issues including boating safety, fish kills, noxious weed infestations, and similar issues to local and visiting anglers alike.
As announced at the AFANT AGM, this government is now funding a new recreation survey which will be undertaken over the financial years of 2008-09 and 2009-10. The survey will ensure that we have the latest information needed to continue to effectively manage recreational fishing and our broader aquatic resources. While the process is lengthy, the information obtained will be invaluable to the management of our fisheries in the future. As I stated earlier, the information needed to make the right management decisions relies on continued monitoring and innovative research. Our highly regarded fisheries research team has continued in its tradition of innovation with respect to the sustainability of our fisheries and recreational fishing.
A large project looking at the survival and health of catch and release fishing for line-caught barramundi is continuing. Results today show that barramundi are very tough fish and, although they show signs of stress when caught, around 90% of the fish survive once released. Also, we have found that fish-friendly knotless landing nets cause less damage to the fish than older style nets, and promote survival. We are continuing our collaboration with interstate partners on a project that investigates how rainfall and river flow affect barramundi populations and growth. This will provide information that will help us maintain barramundi stocks in a changing climate.
Department staff are currently sampling fish in rivers across the Top End to improve our understanding of what freshwater fish are present and what their distribution is. This will provide information on how we can arrange and manage rivers to maintain our remarkable biodiversity.
Work is recommencing on refining a model that will help us manage barramundi stocks on a regional basis and to help target any buy-back of commercial licences. In 2005, the Fisheries Group hosted a national workshop on barramundi where fishery scientists and managers from Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory considered innovative ways for managing barramundi. Some of these innovations are now being considered in the future management of the Northern Territory barramundi fishery.
Moving from the barramundi fishery, our coastal researchers are in the process of finalising a report which describes the size, frequency, age, structure and spawning cycle of the Northern Territory black jewfish at a number of key aggregation sites. The report also documents the effects of barotrauma on black jewfish caught from different water depths and contains advice on how to best release those fish that have not suffered barotrauma. Barotrauma is caused by the rapid change in water pressure as fish are hauled to the surface. Colleagues at the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute are also finalising a report on the movement of the Northern Territory black jewfish at and between key aggregation sites.
Mud crab research has hosted the Northern Territory Mud Crab Stock Assessment in June 2007 in Darwin. The stock assessment undertaken examined the impact of the 10 mm increase in size limit for commercially harvested mud crabs. The stock assessment report is currently undergoing international scientific review and will be available in the coming months. Researchers continue to record the size, sex ratio and mating success of commercially harvested mud crabs through an ongoing monthly mud crab monitoring program.
The pristine condition of the Northern Territory’s aquatic resources underpins the livelihoods and lifestyles of Territorians and places added importance on the need for dealing with the incursions of exotic marine pests which could threaten our unique environment. The Aquatic Pest Management Unit, or the APMU, was established in response to the black-striped mussel incursion in Darwin marinas. This event highlighted the vulnerability of Territory waterways to invasion of exotic species.
A recent externally-funded project has made it possible to involve remote indigenous communities in surveillance for marine pests. This project has allowed training for sea rangers in marine pest issues and links into existing surveillance programs undertaken by the sea rangers. Every year, marine pests are intercepted through a vessel inspection program. Visiting vessels entering Darwin marinas are assessed to determine the risks they pose and may have their hull inspected and the seawater pipework treated to reduce the marine pest risk presented by these vessels. Every year, around 150 vessels are treated in this way.
The APMU is also a central point for the reporting of suspected aquatic pests and provides the capacity to respond to aquatic pest outbreaks. Every year, around 20 marine and freshwater pest reports are investigated by the unit. Fortunately, the majority of these reports turn out to be native species. However, on occasion these reports are of a species of concern. For example, in the last six months APMU has implemented additional surveillance activities on two occasions in response to detection of Asian green mussels on vessels in Darwin Harbour.
Eradication activities have also been undertaken in the last year to remove populations of feral freshwater fish from urban streams in the Darwin region. It is just another example of ways in which we protect our environment. In undertaking all these activities, the unit is mindful that our first line of defence against introduced species is the general public. Territorians are the eyes and ears of our waterways, and educating the public about aquatic pests is an important function of the APMU.
The unit also represents the Northern Territory in many national forums that address the prevention and management of introduced aquatic species. The Northern Territory government is a signatory to the intergovernmental agreement, National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. The APMU has been instrumental in leading the way in vector management of marine pests, with protocols under the national system modelled on those in place in the Northern Territory since 1999. The national system will provide nationally consistent measures for the prevention, emergency response and ongoing control of marine pests around Australia toward a greater level of protection to the aquatic resources of the NT. With the development of this national system complete, jurisdictions are now planning for the implementation of the various elements of such a system.
I am sure we are all aware of the importance placed by this government on indigenous engagement. Within the Fisheries Group, the Indigenous Liaison Unit, the ILU, currently manages projects with coverage of the Top End. These include Aboriginal consultative committees, the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger program and the Indigenous Economic Development programs, and trialling aquaculture ventures in conjunction with the indigenous coastal communities across the Territory. The ILU employs three permanent staff, an indigenous cadet, and an indigenous apprentice.
From within the department of Fisheries, annual budget core funding of $60 000 is allocated to each of the eight marine ranger programs. The Fisheries Group has fostered a strong relationship with each of these groups through training, funding, and the provision of technical support. Over 45 rangers are employed in the marine ranger program. In addition, Fisheries has employed a coordinator and an indigenous support officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups, including those not currently funded under the marine ranger program.
The Northern Territory government, working in partnership with the Aboriginal groups, has established Aboriginal consultative committees to assist with the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. These committees provide an opportunity for both government and indigenous stakeholders to work for the fisheries-related issues from the grassroots level. My department’s Fisheries Group will continue with meaningful consultative processes in place between Aboriginal stakeholders, Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit, representative groups, the Northern Territory Seafood Council, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory.
The ILU also assisted with the issuing of two development licences, one to harvest painted crayfish in the Nhulunbuy region, and the other to harvest jellyfish near the Wessel Islands. Aquaculture projects assisted include the Kulaluk mud crab trial and the trials at the Maningrida mud crab enclosure. Other projects in the concept stage include the Warruwi trepang aquaculture partnership with Tasmanian Seafoods. Support has also been provided to the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation in operating its commercial mud crab licence, its aquarium fish licence, and for a service level agreement with Customs valued at over $300 000 per annum to employ up to four sea rangers on a full-time basis.
The importance of the Territory’s aquatic resources cannot be overstated. Our aquatic resources are a critical feature for both our lifestyle and our economy. They also provide the potential for our economic development in many remote communities.
Whether it be the choice available to a family to spend a day in a tinny on the harbour, or the viability of so many other of our businesses, small and large, both recreational and commercial fishing play an integral role in our Territory. Therefore, the first and overriding responsibility of my Fisheries Group is to use all the resources it has at its disposal to guarantee the sustainability of our fish stocks into the future for all Territorians.
Madam Deputy Speaker, all the evidence suggests that the resource is currently being well managed, and that gives us the confidence to move forward with future initiatives to open up more opportunities for both recreational and commercial development in our Territory fisheries.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for an important statement on an area that is, as you well know, held dear by many Territorians. I attended the AGM of AFANT on Sunday. I have been to a number of those over the years and they are, clearly, a very passionate group.
One thing I note and must comment on is that you finished your statement by saying the highest priority is sustainability of the fish stocks. That was the dominant message that was coming through from the floor in discussion before and afterwards: that those who are keen and those who are members of AFANT have that as their highest priority also. I was particularly interested in discussions that I had with members of AFANT with regards to bag limits. I was surprised to find that they are very supportive of a reduction in those bag limits, which just strikes at the core of the minister’s final point that those who are dedicated and passionate about fishing have the same position as described by him. It was an important one and I was surprised by that position and understand it. It has deepened my respect for the amateur fishing community. That, given the outline of the programs and projects that are in place to reinforce sustainability, is to be commended.
The important element about which I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions, which you have responded to the call from AFANT as well, is the need to do an assessment to measure - a proper survey. These surveys, the ability to measure, are the most important component of any plan or desire to increase sustainability. With all the programs and projects in place, if we do not have that element within our structure or our plans, all of it will be well-intentioned, perhaps, but unable to be properly measured. Therefore, I am pleased that there has been now the concession and the commitment to a survey.
That is an important element that must be committed to in greater strengths in outlining when the next one will be. It should be an ongoing program. You cannot just do a one-off census. You have to be able to compare at set times, to be able to set in a regime so that there is that measuring capacity from now and into the future. We have lost data over a large chunk of time.
Before I came into this Chamber, I remember there was a comprehensive survey where people were pulled up on the road. As usual, after a long day’s fishing, I did not have much to report. I tried, but I did not catch many fish. It is important if we have an approach to this; that the amateur fishing community is going to be able to support it. If we have it in a way that is well planned and put out there, we are going to build a new culture that people will be able to respond to it and look forward to it and know that they are feeding in that most important data.
I commend the minister for making that announcement. However, I urge him to go to the next step to put it in place as a mechanism that projects right out into the future. Otherwise we will have breaks in our data collection. We then lose the opportunity to build that culture - which already exists within AFANT and the amateur fishing community - of responsibility and the need to respond to policy as it is implemented to see whether it is working or not. That way, you would be able to have people being involved in it and looking forward to it.
I know, when the last survey was on, there were some who thought it might be some sort of punitive thing, and you would get pinged for having too many fish or something like that. Therefore, perhaps there was corruption in the data collection, because some people were not sure about it and thought they might be in trouble. However, if you have it as a set regime and you communicate clearly to people, you will get clearer data, which will be most useful to ensuring that the programs that are in place will be effective. I am really pleased to hear that, but I ask for that next element to it. Of course, I am looking forward to data on the mud crabs too. All of those programs must have that measurability built into it.
The most important point the fishing and wider community hold is a concern about access. There was talk about boat ramps, and the serviceability of boat ramps and maintenance thereof. That is on one very important level and I will come back to that. However, the first headline issue is the threat of uncertainty to the world of fishing access, as we have experienced it up until now in the Territory.
I commend the NLC Chief Executive Officer, John Christopherson. I admire the way that he fronted the AFANT AGM. I was very impressed in the way he articulated his position. There was no ambiguity, and he showed the courage of his convictions and argued his case very well. I believe that is the approach that must be taken if we are going to progress these difficult matters. There is much more to be done, and that is the sort of language I would like to see from government. That is the challenge: that you have a clearly defined position with the courage to articulate it and argue it, even at the front and in the face of a hostile crowd. That is perhaps discussion for another day. Even the two positions represented in that room were diametrically and hostile positions, there was respect generated by that courageous presentation. I, as a member of AFANT, and others, take our hat off to John Christopherson and look forward to working through this difficult issue.
A question was placed at that time - and an important question too, and we need to have this clearly presented from government at this time. We know NLC’s position. We know the position, generally, of AFANT and of other members of the community, but we are not sure of the position of government. They have said that they have opposed the Blue Mud Bay decision, and that is why they have put in their opposition to the High Court. The next step needs to be responded to; that being, will the Territory government lobby the federal government to protect the public’s right to fish? Will they or will they not? That question is still hanging in the balance. Will they have that resolved? What side of that ledger will they fall on? Will they stand up and fight to protect the public - that is, everyone’s - right to fish or not? It appears by the absence of a definitive response on that threshold question that the answer must, therefore, I assume, be no. That is a course that must be pursued with rigour to ensure that central freedom can be protected, and all must be done to ensure that. I ask that not just because I am one who enjoys fishing but, more so, I am concerned about the potential that this, if not managed correctly and with courage, could promote greater division and discord within our community.
There are ways of solving the ownership matters - other ways - but I do not want to see a situation where there is going to be this clash, conflict and division, particularly in light of the discussions we have had here today. There has to be a peeling away of this and getting to the core of it and finding a place where we can stand together. If we allow these decisions to be removed from us, and we defer it to other bodies and say: ‘There is not a lot we can do, we have done this and we have done that’, we may be held negligent. I believe John Christopherson has shown the courage that is necessary to fight on this battlefield. There are those in AFANT who are also prepared to find a new place and cut a new path through this. For goodness sake, do not be missing in action on this one. It is a critical issue - not because of the right and freedom to fish but because of the potential for division and disharmony that could generate from an issue like this if handled incorrectly. It needs a hands-on approach and it will require the sort of courage we have already seen. That is the access issue at that level. The question still sits there unanswered: what really is the position of the Territory government on this matter?
Another matter of infrastructure relating to access is the boat ramps. The strength of feeling as presented at the AFANT AGM was largely directed to the access in terms of the permits. As you recall, at last year’s AGM, and this one also to a lesser degree, there was concern about the boat ramps and the roads leading to those boat ramps. There is a lot of work to be done. Some of it was covered in the minister’s statement. I know that the minister has received some information from Paul Van Bruggen relating to some specifics concerning boat ramps. Getting down to brass tacks, there are some real practical matters that need to be attended to, and I know that they have been outlined to you. That is the sort of thing that a fisherman wants to see.
Not so long ago, I was fishing at Adelaide River boat ramp. I had the job of jumping off, just in time before there was not enough water in the river, to hold onto the boat and then go up and get the vehicle and back it down. I was up to almost my waist in grey blue mud to get out of there. Then, I found that the car park had a lot of holes in it, with water everywhere. Fortunately, I am confident enough to back up, but it took me a long time to get the mud from near the boat ramp off myself. There is a bit of work that needs to be done out there. It has already been outlined.
You probably know, minister, that there was a practical response to the concerns which amateur fishermen have regarding maintenance of boat ramps. There was a group of about 30 to 40 volunteers who went out last Saturday to the Channel Island boat ramp. They did it as volunteers, as good citizens. They cannot wait for government to do these things so they got together and did it themselves. Many local businesses gave some prizes to the kids for cleaning up rubbish around the boat ramps. There were trees that had to be cut down because signs could not be seen. That is a boat ramp I used to fish from when I had a boat, before I got into this line of work and do not have a lot of time for fishing any more. I used to go down there a lot and it has deteriorated. You can blame the former government, but you would be mad to do so. The fact is that wattle trees had grown up in front of signs and you could not see the signs any more. There was rubbish all over the place. They brought their own pressure cleaner and cleaned up the boat ramp.
Mr Warren: You got yourself caught out on that one.
Mr MILLS: There was nearly - sorry?
Mr Warren: I said, you got yourself caught out on that one.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: No, I did not actually.
Mr Warren: It was the previous government.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder!
Mr MILLS: No, just in case you are a bit confused there, in fact …
Mr Warren: I am not confused.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: Do not encourage him, Ted.
Mr MILLS: No, I had better not.
My reference was that you want to go there and create that kind of defence, but it would be wrong because these problems have arisen in the past five years. The wattle trees growing all over the place have grown in the last five years or so.
The question was: do we wait and ask questions at AFANT AGMs or do we just get together and do something about it. They did it and I was happy to cook a barbecue for them. We had a good time and they felt good about it. Mind you, it was hot and humid and they picked an excellent day. That was a fish finder forum. I commend those citizens’ action and their spirit of community service. They will be continuing to do such things because they recognise it is the amateur fishermen themselves who create a lot of that mess. So, they are taking a role, which I believe is a good one, of rather than seeing things in the political sense, they provided some practical response to concerns they had.
However, I did note that some matters were really out of their domain, such as managing of signs, cleaning up of the rubbish around the place, and tidying up the access to that boat ramp, including the pressure cleaning. Many of those matters have been raised with the minister directly and I trust that they will be responded to. They are the sorts of things that the amateur fishermen need to see - that kind of care to the detail and work at the end of a boat ramp when all the rocks fall away and it is very difficult to get your boat lifted up over that lip onto the concrete. A lot of those rocks have just moved away. We seem to have many labourers around the place or potential workers, perhaps, in the gaols. I am sure they would like to give a hand with some of these projects and make a contribution and build up that important infrastructure. However, it does need to be attended to.
The next question that needs to be addressed is the Palmerston boat ramp and the long-held plan for a fishing platform at the Palmerston boat ramp and to enhance security - to build a public facility for the families at Palmerston. It has been crafted, I think cleverly, by government as a political football where they can kick it across to the Palmerston City Council and create the scenario that they are the villains. I do not buy it for a moment because I have seen how the whole thing is structured. Palmerston City Council fulfilled an obligation that the Northern Territory government required of them. They have now, I understand, handed it back to the Territory government, so that will end the blame game.
Palmerston residents, for nine or more years, have wanted some improvements to that boat ramp. Now, at the end of blame games, they are not interested so much in the blame game, for the ball is now in the Territory government’s court. That needs to be responded to. There have been promises and assurances made that did not manifest in the form that the Palmerston community thought. There were some changes made to the bridge, but that was nowhere near what they thought they were going to get. There have been public meetings held in Palmerston; there has been a clearly defined plan that has been presented both to the Territory government and to the Palmerston City Council. They have done their reviews and assessments, but they have given it back to the Territory government where it was meant to be in the first place, in my view. We want to see some action on that.
With an early election coming up, I am sure it will form the basis of an election commitment, as it has from the CLP. As a local member, that is something that I want to see fixed. I want to see Harry Rowe’s floating platform down there as well. I would like to raise Harry Rowe’s name in this context and ask that the minister – I am sure you have had a meeting with Harry Rowe. If you have not ...
Mr Natt: I have had a couple.
Mr MILLS: Good, good. He has a good idea and it is worth backing. I have seen it over at Tiwi Islands. That is his jetty there. It works; it is not just an idea. I have seen the photographs from other places, and there are plenty of old tyres around the place - and we are in the spirit of recycling. It would work. I believe he needs to be backed by the Territory government to provide sensible infrastructure in the tropics, in the Top End.
I am curious that, at the AFANT AGM the other day, one question which they all seemed to nod knowingly about - which I have had to investigate since – is the huge pile of dirt on Dick Ward Drive with the flow-off into the rivers, the creeks and the mangroves system there. There was concern about that wash-off. I thought, quite curiously, there was something not right. ‘Yes, I understand the issue’, said the minister, and that you would now bring it to the attention of the appropriate minister. I thought that was quite good. However, I thought the appropriate minister was sitting next to you ...
Mr Kiely: Do you want the answer?
Mr MILLS: You had the opportunity to answer that question in full view of everyone at AFANT. People noticed. They said: ‘Hang on, why did you not just pass the microphone to the bloke to the left?’. Why did you not stand up on your hind legs and give an explanation rather than duck it at that time? I thought that was …
Mr Kiely: Oh, listen to you.
Mr MILLS: … an opportunity …
Mr Kiely: Have you got yourself a fishing licence yet? Have you? Do not talk to me about ducking things.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I thought there was an opportunity there to respond, as a minister of the Crown, to an issue raised that was of concern to constituents in your presence, rather than sit there and hope that it would go away. That is the sort of stuff that we need to see.
I have done some investigation on that matter, and I do look forward to seeing a response - not just me, as I am not trying to make this personal. However, there was, in your official capacity, minister, the opportunity to pass the microphone and we would all have been made aware of the issue that was raised, which I noticed many were concerned about. I did not know a lot about it at the time but I have found out about it since. I am still left with the question: why on earth the relevant minister, rather than passing it on to him at a later stage, would not just pop up and give us an answer on that one?
I commend you, minister, for the broad statement covering a number of very important areas and aspects of this very unique experience that we have in the Northern Territory. May you catch a few extra fish this year than you did last year. I do not think I caught any last year - not in the Territory. At Christmas time I caught some at Rottnest Island which was tremendous - a herring or two. They were good eating too.
I wish you and your department well. I know there is a fair amount of pressure, as you described at the AGM, in terms of the resources within the department. That was quite clear at estimates. I hope you gain the support of your Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the capacity of this very important agency is bolstered and strengthened so that we can achieve the things that we all agree on. This is most important infrastructure, both socially and economically for the Northern Territory. I support the statement.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on what is really a very important economic driver for the Northern Territory. It is critical that the work they are doing in research and getting the database on stock levels continues at the pace that they are carrying it out because, unless you have the finite information around a species and stock levels, you cannot plan effectively for the future.
I particularly welcome inside the statement the new Recreational Fishing Access Working Group comprising representatives from across the board - from the Department of Justice from the legal point of view; AFANT with the amateur anglers and fishermen; the Department of Planning and Infrastructure which is the body that engineers and designs this type of infrastructure; Primary Industry and Fisheries; and Treasury which is there to keep an eye on the cost and to identify and coordinate those new fishing access and infrastructure projects.
This was a question that came up a couple of years ago when the minister for fishing and I, as Treasurer, were at the AFANT AGM. We made that commitment together that we would get a working group together with all of those sorts of people on it because there were concerns that, despite budgeting quite extensively for new access and fishing infrastructure year-by-year, the roll-out of those items year-by-year was problematic for a whole range of reasons. Therefore, the existence of that group will see that clear priorities are attached, that those priority items get their proper priority, and that any issues in achieving the development of that infrastructure is identified early and any hurdles overcome and rectified early through the cooperation of each of those agencies - be it legal, financial, planning, design or engineering – and, of course, getting the priorities right from within the amateur group itself. I welcome that fulfilment of that commitment we made a couple of years ago. I believe it will work for everyone.
The Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit does fine work, as the minister suggests. There was a time, of course, when this unit almost failed to exist; it was so severely depleted following years of neglect by the previous CLP government of our Police Force. There has been considerable growth in the Police Force over the past six years. I trust that some of those resources have found their way into the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit and that it is bolstered a little more than in previous years.
Turning to the Blue Mud Bay Federal Court decision and the High Court appeal, it is interesting to see that the Country Liberal Party has quite a range of views being expressed on this issue. We well recall the Leader of the Opposition’s indignant interview on ABC radio last year when he claimed, in the first instance, that he did not understand the decision, despite the fact that he has a responsibility as a legislator in this Northern Territory parliament to understand the law. So, he did not understand it. Not only did he not understand the law, he stated he would not, under any circumstances, be applying for a permit as required under the Federal Court’s decision of that time. Again, as a legislator, he carries a heavier responsibility than most to uphold all laws of the Territory whether, in fact, they are Northern Territory or federal, and whether he agrees with them or not. In fact, if he disagrees with any law, be it federal or Territory, he has an opportunity, as the Leader of the Opposition, to take that issue out, campaign on it, take Territorians with him, in order to change that law. He does not have the luxury of not attempting to even understand that law, nor does he have the right to break any law - federal or Territory.
More recently, he issued a media release asking the Northern Territory government to detail its contingency plan around the High Court’s decision, whichever way it might go. In the media release, he stated that if the High Court determines that traditional owners do, in fact, have exclusive possession then that is a failing of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. That is a breathtaking assumption to make, but it is totally in sync with the traditional views of successive Country Liberal Party governments in the Northern Territory, all of which have had one thing in common; that is, to demean the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, to vigorously challenge every successful land grant no matter how strong that claim may have been, no matter the rights involved and, certainly, no matter the costs involved in fighting them.
The Kenbi land claim, just as one example, took 20 years and $20m. I believe totally, absolutely, that if the CLP were still in government today, the Kenbi land claim would still be far from settled, and that $20m would still be escalating on the cash register. They do not, never have, and never will, accept that traditional owners have rights granted to them under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This exclusive access to the intertidal zone where it abuts around Gove Aboriginal land is one of these rights, the same as the Kenbi claim was a right won in the courts. They continued to fight it every day for 20 years at a cost of $20m to the taxpayer, no matter the strength of the claim.
The Leader of the Opposition’s position put forward in his media release is for the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory to pay to ensure free access for fishermen. The outcome for continued free access is, of course, the desired outcome for the Northern Territory government, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, I believe, for everyone in the Northern Territory. However, the simplistic solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to grab a bag of cash - do not worry about how big that bag of cash might have to be - and buy the rights to fish free for everyone. That is it, end of story, no further negotiation, no further explanation, no further exploration of the issues involved - just decide on the sum of money.
The CLP Senator for the Northern Territory, Nigel Scullion, also, of course, opposed the Federal Court decision but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I think he actually understood it. At least he did not say that he did not understand it. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, he did not make any claims that he would not be obtaining a permit. Senator Scullion, in the NT News on 6 December, said if the government lost the case then the law should be changed - simple as that. If the government loses the case in the High Court, then the law should be changed. What the article did not mention was whether Senator Scullion had any understanding of what that might mean.
To legislate away the rights of the traditional owners, of course, would invoke compensation - indeed, in quite massive terms - which would be required under the just terms compensation where any compulsory acquisition of a property right has occurred. Buying out the exclusive right to fish on waters on or over Aboriginal land identified under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act could be done - no question about it, it could be done. Anything may be compulsorily acquired by governments but it invokes just terms compensation. It is the price tag that accompanies that acquisition that is the issue. An exclusive right to access and fish all waters on or over Aboriginal land is being bought out not for six months, one year, 20 years, or 99 years as Mal Brough would probably have it, but forever. For forever and a day you are extinguishing that exclusive right. That would be a breathtaking figure, indeed. Where do you start - $3bn, $5bn, $10bn? Any figure at all could be argued and put on the table and, in fact, could well be negotiated - not the question. It could well be bought out after negotiation. However, what would be worrying me with my past cap as Treasurer is: where does that figure rest? That issue aside, at least the CLP Senator for the Northern Territory had a view, even if not fully covered in that Northern Territory News article.
There is another CLP view, which was expressed quite vigorously during the last federal election campaign. We were out in the Laynhupuy Homelands doing remote mobile polling, and this view was put by Peter Manning who was handing out CLP how-to-vote cards in these communities. Mr Manning has been the CLP candidate for Nhulunbuy the past two Territory elections. I believe he is fairly clearly identified to the voters out there as a voice of the CLP. I make that clear because he was, at the time and probably still is, also an executive member of the Seafood Council. However, if you are talking about the context of an election campaign and a person handing out CLP brochures and how-to-vote cards for the CLP, I can only assume he was talking for the CLP at this time and not the Seafood Council.
In four different but very key homeland communities in the Blue Mud Bay area - the home of the litigation that has led us all of the way to the High Court; so there is no more area in which the issues around Blue Mud Bay are important than, of course, Blue Mud Bay itself - Mr Manning told senior traditional owners in each case: ‘We do not have a problem. In fact, we hope you win it’. ‘We do not have a problem with the High Court, in fact we hope you win it’, said Peter Manning, CLP representative. How does that stack up with what Terry Mills has been saying? One, he does not understand it, but how does it stack up with the CLP Senator? How does it stack up with CLP policy? Peter Manning is the voice of the CLP in north-east Arnhem Land: ‘We hope you win it’.
That is quite a new, novel and, indeed, very different twist to the views, as I said, put by the Leader of the Opposition. We know he does not understand it; he will not get a permit. The CLP Senator for the Northern Territory understands the decision and disagrees with it. However, the CLP’s representative in Nhulunbuy said: ‘We hope you win it’.
This took me straight back to the CLP of old. Steve Hatton, the former member for Nightcliff, was very good at this. In fact, he became a member of the Marika family, the Rirratjinu clan at Yirrkala. He was great friends with Djuwalpi and Bakamumu Marika. It has taken me years to pull them back to the Labor Party - even now I am not sure of Djuwalpi. He stood against the member for Arnhem, not very successfully. We have established a great personal relationship over the years; however, you never take anyone for granted, particularly the Marikas.
Anyway, Steve Hatton used to visit indigenous communities a lot, but particularly at Yirrkala, because he was quite taken with the Marikas. He was good at telling indigenous people in those communities what he thought they wanted to hear. A week later, he would stand in this parliament and say something totally and completely different. The CLP still marvel and wonder why so many indigenous communities across the Northern Territory will not have truck with them - do not trust them, never have and never will. Well, it is the Steve Hattons and the Peter Mannings of the CLP who put that distrust, that fear, and that dislike into the minds and hearts of many indigenous Territorians across this great part of Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to have a go at putting some substantial meat around the CLP’s policy on this because it is a critical issue and people are entitled to know what the CLP stands for on this matter, other than they oppose the decision. He also has to try to ensure that everyone who speaks for the CLP, Peter Manning included, sings off the same song sheet because, otherwise, it is dishonest, deceitful, easily discredited and, again, lends itself to the distrust, the fear, and the dislike of the CLP that is so prevalent in Aboriginal communities.
Whichever way the High Court rules on this - and we will not know until about mid this year - it is critical that this government, the Seafood Council, the Northern Land Council, the communities, and AFANT all work together to ensure that there are ownership opportunities within the fishing and aquaculture industries for the people who live on these coastal communities that abut and surround the affected waters. That has to be an absolute bottom line outcome whichever way the decision falls, because the fishing industry provides great potential for ownership, partnerships and, most importantly, employment for all those indigenous coastal communities that remains largely untapped to date.
I encourage the minister to ensure that that preliminary work that was being done continues, and there is a coming together of each of the parties involved to map out the future for indigenous employment, involvement, and ownership within the industry. Those outcomes have to be built into whatever final settlement is reached, whether the traditional owners will have exclusive access, or whether the Northern Territory wins the High Court appeal and the status quo of no exclusive rights and no requirement for permits is returned to.
However, providing buckets of dollars by way of compensation for - in the case of Senator Scullion’s idea - legislative amendment, does not produce one job, one employment opportunity, or any business or entrepreneurial activity in those Aboriginal communities. Neither does providing dollars straight out to pay for the costs of permits should traditional owners demand payment for access in the event that they win in the High Court. All parties in this matter with a vested interest in the outcome need to be flexible, creative, innovative, and they must carry goodwill into these negotiations to ensure that we have a win/win outcome for all involved, regardless of whether the appeal is won or lost.
Much goodwill has already been established between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council because of the necessary coming together of how we are going to handle the interim process once the Federal Court decision was handed down, and the intervening period of uncertainty until such time as the High Court considered the matter and handed down its decision. I believe there is an opportunity to continue to build on that goodwill between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council.
We have, in Mr Wali Wunungmurra, the new Chairman of the Northern Land Council, a great personal friend, but a highly respected indigenous leader in north-east Arnhem Land, which is home to these communities. He understands firsthand the issues around the Blue Mud Bay decision. It is an emotive issue, and it involves powerful interests and, of course, invokes powerful politicis.
I do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to display creativity, flexibility, innovation or anything by way of those qualities, because he has no interest in indigenous employment in remote and coastal communities, in indigenous rights - and that has always been the CLP way – and in an innovative, creative win/win situation. The Leader of the Opposition often implores this government to get above the politics of the issue - as recently as this morning, standing in this Chamber; imploring the Chief Minister to put politics aside and let us work together on this matter.
Therefore, I invite him, if he is capable, of doing exactly the same on this matter, otherwise he stands condemned as a grubby, uninformed hypocrite - and that is his choice. That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. Try to be a little creative …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Go and have a beer, mate, that is where you belong. That is all you are good for. Go and have another beer. Go and get drunk …
Mr Conlan: You know what they say about old men in sports cars.
Mr STIRLING: You go and have another beer. Go and get drunk again, Matt …
Mrs MILLER: Oh, disgusting! A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr STIRLING: … instead of being a nuisance in here if you cannot contribute.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy! Order!
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask you to withdraw your last comments.
Mr STIRLING: What, withdraw the truth, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask you to withdraw your last comments.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw my last comments …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr STIRLING: The bit about being true.
I implore – no, I do not implore the Leader of the Opposition at all; that is what he does to this government. The challenge for him, as I said, is to be a little creative, a little innovative and get above the politics because he is very good at asking that of everyone else. Is he capable of doing the same himself and producing a policy position in this matter?
To ensure there is no misconstruing of any remarks I have made here tonight, this government does not agree with permits - never has and will not into the future. For six-and-a-half years, we have been in government and we have been consistent on that point, even when there was a will by those within AFANT for us to introduce permits. We resisted it then, we will resist it now. We do not agree with it, but we do have to respect and uphold the law which, of course, is the responsibility of governments and parliaments and members of them.
If there is a way to work through an adverse High Court decision on this, maintain the access …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, your time has expired.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Thanks, Madam Speaker. If it had not been for the ill manners of the member for Greatorex, I would have finished my contribution within the time allowed.
If there is a way to work through these quite complex issues, get back to the situation that we had prior to the last Federal Court decision - that is, maintain the access without permits - then this government will find that way and it will create a win/win situation for all involved. That is a challenge this government lives with and is facing up to. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition showed a little - just a little - of the same sense of responsibility.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House. Reading through the further development and continuation of work that has been done, as a former Fisheries minister, I congratulate our current Fisheries minister for the great work that he and the department has done.
As the House knows, I am a keen fisherman but, probably like the Leader of the Opposition, I do not get much of a chance right now to go out fishing. I certainly look at it with interest. I can see that the government and the minister are very focused on ensuring sustainability of our fish stocks. That is very important, because they are coming under increasing pressure, no doubt, from the increasing population in Darwin. It is good for the marine businesses that sell boats and outboard motors; there are certainly more boats around, more people going fishing and, I believe, more pressure on fish stocks.
I know that the minister is looking at issues such as buy-back of licences. There has already been a considerable number that have been bought back, and that is fantastic news for anglers. There are also studies going on about those species that are susceptible to overfishing, particularly the species that take quite a long time to reach maturity: the golden snappers, the jewfish, etcetera. Fishing is so great up here that we want to sustain it for the next generation of fishers. Basically, I believe the minister and the government is on the right track there.
I will follow on from the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to Blue Mud Bay and, once again, state the government’s position regarding Blue Mud Bay. As all members are aware, there is a High Court challenge going on at present to the decision of the Federal Court that the Aboriginal land rights should apply to those areas between the high tide mark and the low tide mark. We are vigorously appealing that decision on the basis that we believe there needs to be clarification around this particular issue.
I understand that the Blue Mud Bay case decision will be handed down in March or some time around there. I believe it was a very positive development late last year that the Northern Land Council, in its statement of claim, acknowledged that the Fisheries Act did apply to that water, because there was a lot of doubt about that. That is a clarification that is welcomed by everyone. The last thing we need is lack of clarity around the application of the Northern Territory Fisheries Act. That is a welcome progression.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition asking hypothetical questions about what the government might do if our appeal is unsuccessful. His questions were exactly that - hypothetical questions. No one can second guess the verdict of the High Court in this matter. There is a spectrum of possibilities within their judgment. It is such a complex issue, it is just foolish of anyone to try to be hypothetical about what the High Court may decide. At one end, of course, there is the spectrum that they uphold our appeal, the other end of the spectrum is that they dismiss our appeal. Between those two possibilities there are many other possibilities, so it is foolish for anyone to try to hypothesise and ask hypothetical questions about what our position is.
As the member for Nhulunbuy and the minister said, we are rock solid on one issue: we have opposed fishing permits. We opposed them when I was minister. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, AFANT was lobbying government for the introduction of a fishing permit where people paid, and there would be a fund for fishing research to ensure sustainability of fishing stocks. We opposed that then, we oppose that now, and we oppose other forms of fishing permits.
It was important that I place that on the record in closing this debate so there is absolutely no doubt about that. Let us not jump the gun on the High Court decision. Let us wait and see what the High Court, in their wisdom, hands down. Then we will be making plans from there.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the parliament and congratulate the minister and the department for the great work they are doing safeguarding our fish stocks and ensuring sustainability and that fishing is the lure of the Territory.
Mr BONSON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support this important statement on fisheries delivered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The Northern Territory is blessed by nature’s bounty from the dry arid lands of Central Australia to the wet tropics of the north. We see, feel and experience rare beauty and rich endowment of plants and animals. Our seas, harbours, estuaries, rivers and billabongs sustain a rich diversity of aquatic species. Fishing is in our blood.
From ancient times to the present, fishing has been important here. Aquatic resources have always been integral to the culture, art and diet of the first Australians. In more recent times, strong commercial and recreational fishing sectors have emerged. Tourism-based fishing makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Iconic events such as the Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals have put the Territory on the national and international fishing maps. The beauty of the Territory and our unsurpassed lifestyle have received extensive exposure from television programs such as Andrew Ettinghausen’s Escape with ET and none other than the famous Alex Julius’ Fishing North Australia. Our pristine waters, river systems and fishing feature strongly in these programs.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Tourism NT highlight visitors’ participation in fishing. Over 50 000 visitors, 6% of the visitors to NT annually, fish at least once during their stay. Higher participation rates emerge in Darwin, up to 40%, and coastal regions, 52%, compared to other locations. Almost half - 48% - of all visiting fishers or members of their party bring fishing gear with them and a significant portion, 12%, bring a boat to the Territory.
I know from a good friend of mine, George Voukolos from Fishing and Outdoor World, that they add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the local economy. I mention George as a true Territorian and business operator and passionate fisherman. He runs the longest-running, privately-owned fishing and tackle shop in the whole of Australia. He is a fantastic advocate for the Territory lifestyle. People come here just to see him. I have many times fished with him on the Daly River. We have promised to take the member for Johnston with us to the Daly River, and we will. This Dry Season we will, and we will fish with lures, and catch beautiful fish in the Daly River.
One of the very proud achievements, as a government - particularly from the first term and carried on to this term, that this Cabinet and my colleagues as a Caucus has voted on - is the protection of an unbelievable resource like the Daly River. We have seen the damage caused to many of the rivers down south. We know the science of history was not as good as it is now, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Daly River is an icon. As the largest, running freshwater river in the Top End, it is incumbent on us to protect it for future generations so that my son and his sons and daughters can one day go less than 175 km from Darwin, put in a boat and catch beautiful fish. It is a fantastic achievement by this government, and a testament to our green credentials.
It is estimated that $35m of the Territory’s annual tourism income is derived from commercial fishing. Tourist-based fishing is significant to the Territory and receives strong support from the government. Recreational fishing opportunities for local fishers are also a top priority of the government. There is nothing like a day’s fishing with family and friends. It can be good for the diet and it is always good for the body and soul. My electorate of Millner is bounded by Rapid Creek. Darwin is one of the few cities in the world that can boast a pristine waterway flowing between its suburbs. I suppose you have heard this before, but I caught my first ever barramundi at Rapid Creek. I cannot even remember how old I was, but I would have been in my early teens if not nine or 10. It was a fantastic feeling to catch that first barramundi, and to do it in a beautiful environment like Rapid Creek was fantastic. I know, Madam Speaker, you have a passion for it yourself as Rapid Creek comes through the Nightcliff electorate at its mouth
When growing up in Darwin, it was common for local families to fish in Rapid Creek, Buffalo Creek, the rocks at East Point and other locations around the shores of our magnificent harbour. Participation of local residents in fishing is also confirmed by statistics. It is a hard word for me to say but I will repeat it, statistics.
Over 42 000 non-indigenous NT residents go fishing in the Territory annually. Around one in every four resident households owns a pleasure boat - over 11 500 in total. Of these, 80% are at least used partially for recreational fishing with 59% used exclusively for fishing. A total of over 430 000 days are fished annually by recreational fishers, representing 2.2 million hours of fishing effort. Residents account for the majority of the effort: 77% fished at an average of eight days annually and over five hours per day. Barramundi is the most popular target species accounting for over 38% of all hours fished. Visitors target barramundi to a greater extent; 48% of our visitor hours are fished for that particular fish. Darwin Harbour is the main fishing area accounting for close to half, 45%, of all hours fished followed by the McArthur region with 11%, with all other regions below the 10% level.
The minister’s statement made direct mention of the benefits of our commercial fishing industry in value of production and employment. Approximately 1450 people are employed in the commercial seafood industry and gross value of production at the point of sale is about $30m.
All the points I have made so far point to one overwhelming conclusion, which is the underlying thrust of the minister’s statement and I congratulate him for this. It is this: all of us - government, citizens, fishers, stakeholder groups and visitors - share a responsibility to ensure that our aquatic environment and sustainable fisheries are maintained and remain secure for future generations. This government takes great care in its thought process for what will happen into the future. I know this minister will do his damndest to ensure that we and our children and our children’s children will have the same opportunities that we do now.
All of the policies and initiatives in the minister’s statement are captured by this overriding objective: good public policy informed by consultation and research that will deliver positive outcomes for sustainable fisheries. I do not intend to elaborate on all the initiatives mentioned in the minister’s statement, but some of the measures mentioned are noteworthy.
As the Minister for Sport and Recreation and Minister for Young Territorians, I am delighted to support the junior recreational fishing workshops held in Nhulunbuy and Katherine. The workshops promote recreational fishing and provide education on handling fish correctly and respecting our natural environment. Projects such as this are invaluable. I commend and congratulate all of those involved in this work. Good fishing skills are compatible with good environmental management.
I also acknowledge the minister’s continuing commitment to the marine rangers programs in remote locations. I note that $60 000 is allocated annually to marine programs undertaken by the following groups: the Tiwi Marine Rangers, the Gumurr Marthakal Marine Rangers, the Mardbalk Marine Rangers, the Thamarrurr Marine Rangers, the Djelk Sea Rangers, the Anindilyakwa Sea Rangers, the Numbulwar Sea Rangers and the li-Anthawirriyarra Sea Rangers unit from Borroloola …
Ms McCarthy: Lee-Antha-wirri-yarra.
Mr BONSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, which was often pointed out in the last sittings, I have a problem with saying my Ls, so I am unapologetic for that. It is a problem I have had to deal with all my life and I am overcoming the shy nature of my personality.
These programs fulfil twin policy objectives that provide ongoing training opportunities for indigenous Territorians. Over 45 rangers are employed in the program - obviously a great potential for further employment through initiatives through Closing the Gap and, hopefully, working with the Commonwealth government on the intervention. The Marine Rangers program has also enhanced the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. I am sure all honourable members will agree that we are fortunate to secure the involvement in our fisheries of the Territorians who have intimate knowledge of our coastal habitats.
As a long-time Darwinite and an occasional fisherman – and in position I am in - I have to say that before I entered politics I was quite a keen fisherman. I am pleased to support the fisheries initiatives the government has undertaken in Darwin’s magnificent harbour and other local waterways. The government has bought back nine out of 14 commercial net fishing licences and closed Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to inshore coastal net fishing, which is a fantastic initiative. We are also expanding the artificial reef network in the Darwin region, including scuttling the 27 m Medkehanun III. The government also arranged scuttling of three decommissioned vessels to expand the Lee Point artificial reef complex. These new reefs have been added to the existing sites within the harbour and, at the Lee Point artificial reef complex, they will enhance fishing opportunities for all anglers.
I hope that one day before my time is out in this House, I will get the opportunity to show the people of this House - my colleagues and opposition if they want - how I see Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay and how we fish and hunt that area. It is a beautiful place.
Measures such as these confirm that the government’s commitment to recreational fishing is strong and tangible. There is also strong commitment to fund scientific research which will support the protection of fishing stocks and habitats. We are a government that listens. It is pleasing to know that the minister and his department consult widely when developing policy and formulating initiatives. I can assure all listeners that I have witnessed the conversations that this minister and we, as a Cabinet and Caucus, have had in relation to recreational fishing. Let there be no doubt that we are very keen to protect that wonderful lifestyle that we take for granted.
The statement mentions a range of organisations which have contributed to the policy outcomes and initiatives. The following organisations have all made substantial contributions: Territory Seafood Council; Tiwi Land Council; Anindilyakwa Land Council; Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, otherwise known as AFANT; Recreational Fishing Access Working Group; Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit; Australian Fisheries Management Authority; and the University of Queensland.
The government continues to support recreational fishing through its funding of peak organisations. This year, AFANT, the peak body representing the interests of recreational anglers in the Territory, received $175 000 to employ staff and to administer the small grants program for fishing clubs. What an unbelievable initiative by this Territory government. The NT Guided Fishing Industry Association received an allocation of $40 000 for the past three years to support its operations - another fantastic initiative. I know the minister is keen to maintain an effective dialogue with NT fishers and their representative organisations.
The statement delivered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, reaffirms the government’s ongoing commitment to sustainable fishing in the Northern Territory. The minister is passionate about our Territory lifestyle, aquatic environments and long-term sustainability of our aquatic resources.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support his ministerial statement and commend it to this Assembly.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, that is a hard act to follow! I wish to contribute as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure as infrastructure is critical to access to our fantastic fisheries. In 2005, the government committed some $10m in funding over four years for one of the Territory’s favourite recreational activities, fishing. Fishing is a very important part of our Territory lifestyle. This government has an excellent track record in investing in fishing infrastructure and, importantly, our maintenance projects. Investment ensures that tried and true fishing sites continue to provide opportunities for launching and retrieving vessels. Investment in new sites also helps to open up new fishing opportunities for access by more Territorians and our interstate visitors who come here for the lure of our great fishing.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is responsible for the repair, maintenance and any improvements to 24 boat ramps across the Territory. All other ramps are either managed by local governments or the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts. The government has heard the concerns raised in the fishing industry about our ramps becoming more slippery. Typically, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure organises our concrete ramps be water blasted twice every year. We have listened to these concerns and have now increased the water pressure blasting to four to six weeks as of December, due to the rough weather dragging up mud and increased algae. We hope that this improves the safety of the ramps and meets the concerns of our recreational fishermen. Maintenance of ramps is important. It includes rubbish collection, mowing and slashing of grass, de-silting of coastal ramps every two to four months, and identified repairs as a result of vandalism or, indeed, from erosion due to wave or weather action. Erosion repairs are typically undertaken after the Wet, as some of our ramps may be inaccessible.
Significant planned repairs include: repairs to the end of the Corroborree Billabong ramp, a very popular fishing spot; additional significant maintenance repairs are planned to be undertaken at the fabulous Nightcliff jetty in the 2008-09 financial year - it has had significant works, and more works are headed out that way; and, significant maintenance repairs are planned to be undertaken on the Cullen Bay pontoon in the 2008-09 financial year.
Repairs and maintenance expenditure on recreational fishing infrastructure has been significant. In 2005-06, this government spent $987 000 in its repairs and maintenance of ramps and infrastructure, which includes initial preparation work for the construction of the Mule Creek ramp, and for the upgrading of the Rocky Creek ramp. In 2006-07, there was a significant expenditure of $695 000 and, in 2007-08, we anticipate $1.919m will be spent. That includes an additional $1.53m for the dredging of Cullen Bay.
Capital works and expenditure and fishing infrastructure include, in the 2005-06 financial year, Gregory National Park; where we had the Victoria River access and ramp for $1m. In 2006-07, there was the finalising of Mule Creek for $62 000. In 2005-06 to 2007-08, the Channel Point boat ramp for some $1.5m and, of course, in 2007-08, we have the East Arm boat ramp for $3.1m. In 2004, the Dinah Beach boat ramp received a significant upgrade. Top End anglers welcomed a $700 000 renovation to the boat ramp, which allowed for launching on 90% of tides. Government has also spent $500 000 upgrading the Buffalo Creek boat ramp, including the installation of power line extensions from Lee Point Road; nine lights at the car park; a walkway to the boat ramp; and a barbecue area. Security fencing and an additional 37 car parks have also been provided, adding to the usage and, importantly, the security of the site.
The East Arm boat ramp and the adjacent subdivisional works will ensure the facility will be state-of-the-art and include access for disabled Territorians to enjoy a great day’s fishing. Tenders were announced on 19 September last year. The budget is more than $3m for the ramp, access, parking and lighting. The tender is expected to be awarded in the coming weeks - great news for our anglers. Works will commence during March/April of this year, with completion anticipated after the Dry kicks in, in August/September of this year.
The Palmerston boat ramp – four years ago the Northern Territory government provided $150 000 to the Palmerston City Council to improve the Palmerston boat ramp. Sadly, they have not undertaken any works. I am now informed that they have given the money back minus $25 000 that they spent on a master plan that has not actually been publicly released. The Northern Territory government believes that the Palmerston boat ramp is an important facility in Palmerston. We will take over management of the site to ensure that it continues to be enjoyed by fishermen. The government will also pursue improvements to this ramp.
Many of the Territory’s top fishing sites are accessed via unsealed roads. The Territory road network covers vast areas of our Territory with only 23% of the network sealed. Investment in the road network is, in many respects, investing in our fishing industry. Our roads budget exceeds $180m. This is the highest amount in the Territory’s history and the highest per taxpayer in the country. We will continue our investment in roads - critical roads that service very popular fishing sites such as Shady Camp and Channel Point - to improve access.
The Recreational Fishing Access Working Group is a great initiative. The recent introduction of this group provides a high-level focus group with direct responsibility for identifying and coordinating new fishing access and, importantly, the infrastructure projects. I am looking forwarding to receiving advice from the group for consideration and future capital and minor new works programs.
This government will continue to support and provide options for recreational fishermen and our recreational fishing women in the Territory through targeted investment, listening to our recreational fishing women and men.
Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. The minister has a keen interest in ensuring that we continue to provide access and improvements across the Territory, in our regions and around our capital city, so that every one of us can get out there and enjoy a great day’s fishing.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their input to my statement. As we often say, fishing is the lure of the Territory, and it is a very apt term. The figures produced in the statement earlier show the importance of recreational fishing and commercial fishing to the Territory, in lifestyle and also the economy. It is incumbent on me and the government to manage it effectively and ensure the sustainability of the fishery is maintained. The future generations are the important ones. We are having good times on the rivers and the waters of the Northern Territory at the moment, and it is important that we ensure that the future generations are able to enjoy what we have here today.
The Northern Territory is leading the field in many areas and we often receive accolades for the management of our fishery from around Australia and the world. I cannot speak highly enough of the Fisheries Group for the work they undertake. I will speak more on that later.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his input. He was an attendee at the AFANT AGM on Sunday. He quite rightly pointed out that they are a passionate and well-informed group of individuals who just love their fishing. They want to ensure that the infrastructure and the viability of the fisheries are maintained.
He mentioned the reduction of the bag limits and the possession limits that are in place at the moment to ensure the future sustainability of our fish stocks. Decisions about bag limits are based on the science that goes into it and, if any of our resources are under threat, we will act very quickly.
The Leader of the Opposition also talked about the survey and the importance of the survey. He recognised and thanked this government for initiating the survey. The survey to be undertaken will build on previous surveys undertaken by the Northern Territory and a joint Northern Territory/Commonwealth survey which was undertaken in 2001. This survey will be asking all local fishermen, as well as visitors, to undertake this survey over the next couple of years. I can assure everyone that it is going to be well planned and we will be seeking feedback from stakeholders on what information they would like to see go into this survey. Information taken from charters and fishing tour operators will be incorporated into that as well. We are currently working on some terms of reference and a consultant has been looking at that. That consultant will give us information on what we need to put into the survey. We are looking forward to what this survey produces. It is going to be something that has not been undertaken in the Northern Territory since 1995, as I understand. As mentioned previously, in 2001 it was a Commonwealth/Northern Territory survey.
We hope that it will be an ongoing process. It is important that we maintain the understanding of what fishing is all about in the Territory; what spots need to be looked after; and also fish numbers and the sustainability of certain species also.
The Blue Mud Bay decision was brought up at the AGM of AFANT and the government’s position is clear. I will read out what I said in my statement as I indicated to the AFANT AGM on Sunday:
- This government’s position on the Blue Mud case is clear. We do not agree with the Blue Mud decision handed down by the Federal Court and that is why we are appealing it in the High Court. The Territory government remains opposed to recreational fishing permits and licences.
The Leader of the Opposition also touched on the perceived lack of a collection of data. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that that is not the case. We keep good records on the fishing tour operators’ log books and also the commercial log books to ensure that numbers in specific areas are looked at and maintained. The Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals also play an important role in the data collection as well. The collection of data from those events is fed into the database which gives us long-term information on the stocks of the Daly and other rivers. The collection of data is important and the Fisheries department is ensuring that data collection is maintained.
I mentioned the importance and upgrade of those ramps. I was pleased to hear the member for Karama saying that the infrastructure expenditure has been recognised by her department, and that ongoing processes and maintenance will be undertaken on ramps into the future. I was pleased to hear that the cleaning of those ramps will be increased to a six-weekly cycle.
Recreational fishers like looking after their infrastructure. It was good to hear that they were involved in the working bee that was undertaken at Channel Island boat ramp. Matt Flynn, through his FFF Forum, is often asking for clubs to get involved to clean up rubbish around ramps. I am pleased to hear that these recreational fishermen are becoming involved with their local infrastructure and looking after what is there at the moment.
The Opposition Leader mentioned the Palmerston boat ramp, and it was also recognised by the member for Karama, as an important infrastructure for Palmerston. I am pleased to say that I met with the Mayor of Palmerston yesterday and the Palmerston boat ramp was discussed. We provided funding about four years ago of about $150 000 and $25 000 to $30 000 of that money was spent on an appraisal. We have a copy of that appraisal but, since then, I understand that the Palmerston council has decided to hand that money back to us. It was disappointing, as this probably could have been taken a little further because there were grants available through the federal government’s Recreational Fishing Infrastructure Grant process. We asked the Palmerston City Council to apply for one of those grants last year and they failed to do so. However, all is not lost. We are talking to the mayor now. As the member for Karama said, they are looking at the importance of the ramp there and I am sure more will be done.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his support of my statement. He recognised the importance of the Fishing Access Working Group. I thank him for his support when he was Treasurer. He had a lot of input on the understanding of the money that is required for infrastructure. It is pleasing to see that now that this working group has come together, we have representation from Treasury, DPI, my department of DPIFM, the Department of Justice and, also, the recreational fishing association; AFANT is having input into this Recreational Fishing Access Working Group as well. It looks at the public access liability issues and also at what infrastructure is required. The reason we got the Department of Justice involved is purely for the fact that the public access liability issues are important. We require that input from Justice to give us an understanding of what requirements are needed if we were to open up other areas of access.
The member for Nhulunbuy also mentioned the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit and the important role that they do play out on the water. They do some great work. I can report that more than 2700 recreational fishermen were questioned last year on bag limits, and inspections were undertaken on their boats. There were a number of recreational fishermen booked for being over the bag limit.
The Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit has also been involved heavily in enforcing arrangements for the commercial fishery. We have had reports of certain commercial fishermen overstepping their mark in certain areas of the coast, and the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit has been out on the water closely monitoring what is happening in those areas. It is also pleasing to know that they undertook an awareness program at King Ash Bay. As we all know, King Ash Bay is a very lively area during the Dry Season and has a large interstate visitor contingent that visits the area and does a lot of fishing. We have had reports that some of those fishermen where overstepping the limits, and the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit went down to conduct a workshop for awareness for the fishermen there so they understand what the Fisheries Act does entail and what bag limits they needed to look at.
The member for Nhulunbuy acknowledged the indigenous employment section. At Maningrida and Kulaluk we have had a mud crab program working. I know that my department has been working closely with those two communities to ensure that the viability of the mud crab industry is maintained in those two areas. It is pleasing to note also that the crablets that were supplied to these communities were supplied from the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. They pioneered a breeding cycle for the mud crab which is the first in the world. I understand that we supply them commercially for grow-out and Maningrida and Kulaluk were two of the first communities to be involved in that. My congratulations to the scientists at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre for the work they do there.
The other indigenous employment section that is doing some great work out on the waters is the marine rangers. I cannot speak highly enough of the marine rangers and the work they do as the eyes and the ears of our section on the water providing us feedback. There are opportunities there, and Fisheries provide real jobs for indigenous personnel for coastal communities. It is important that we get them and keep them in work out there. It is important for us to have that feedback from the marine rangers, and it is also important for them to get into the work environment and work in an area they love.
The member for Johnston, the former Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, has a great passion for this. As I said before, I am one of the lucky people here; I have a couple of really good portfolios. I know there are a number of people who would line up behind me to take my role at any stage. I know the member for Johnston would love to step into my shoes and pick up the portfolio that he left. He has a keen interest in recreational fishing.
He mentioned and recognised the importance of research that has been undertaken by the department. Some of the areas that I mentioned in my comments included the barotrauma. Some of the work that has been undertaken on the black jewfish has been amazing work. It has been run over a couple of years, but some of the data we are getting back now is giving a great insight into the life of the barra and how they work around their breeding points. Also, the catching and releasing of the black jewfish is important, because anything caught in depths of more than 10 m of water is going to suffer some sort of trauma and cannot be released. We have been putting out pamphlets and information to recreational fishermen so that they understand that, if they do catch their bag limit and they want to start releasing, they release the fish in a way that is not going to be harmful.
Another area of research that I mentioned briefly in my statement was the barra fingerlings. This is another area pioneered by the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. The barra fingerlings are bred-up at the centre and supplied for commercial use. If anyone ever gets the opportunity to visit the Darwin Aquaculture Centre, it is very interesting. They have a large tank with about six or eight large barramundi in it which they use for breeding purposes. The eggs are flushed into separate tanks, and those eggs are gradually bred into the small fingerlings. It is an amazing process. It is a very pristine process, very hygienic; you have to be clean to move from area to area. I commend the scientists in that area.
The member for Millner recognised the role of tourism in our economy, and the fact that the retailers in the Northern Territory are extremely grateful for the role that recreational fishing plays in the economy of the Northern Territory. Approximately 100 000 visitors coming up from down south all want to wet a line at some stage. The spin-off from that to the retailers is large, and the figure of $34.7m direct expenditure on recreational fishing is an amazing figure.
He also mentioned that he would like to look after the future of the waters surrounding the Northern Territory and all the waterways. He knows that they have to remain in pristine condition, and he recognised the work that the Fisheries department is doing to ensure that happens. He reminisced about his boyhood days when he used to fish at Rapid Creek. I am sure many other people of our age did the same. I am sure they can remember that fishing in those times was great, even though the lures, the infrastructure and boats, the rods and reels and everything you can buy now are greatly upgraded. I am sure they can still remember that the times of fishing back in those days were good, and they still remain that way. It is a pat on the back for all those who have been involved in the industry over these years to ensure that the fisheries industry remains a viable proposition.
He also recognised the Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay closure and the importance of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay to the residents of the Northern Territory. As I said in my statement, around 60% of the residents of the Northern Territory fish in Shoal Bay or Darwin Harbour. It is an amazing figure. Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay play an important role in recreational fishing.
I was pleased to hear the contribution from the member for Karama. The infrastructure expenditure has been recognised. The access by fishers and visitors has been recognised by her department. It shows that the government departments are listening. Since I have been in this role, if any item has been brought to my attention that needs to be looked at, I go to the appropriate minister and the work is done or undertaken, and feedback is given, or the job is finished. It shows that this government is reactive and it does get work done that is required.
The repairs and maintenance of other infrastructure in and around the place can become very expensive. I know the member for Karama mentioned some substantial figures and that shows that her department has recognised the role that recreational fishing does play in the Territory, and they will maintain the infrastructure as best they can.
The regional and remote areas have been recognised. It is important that access to the regional and remote areas is maintained. It is critical, in many aspects, that we take the pressure off the local rivers such as the Daly because they can become overfished. That has been recognised by many of the recreational fishermen I talk to. To try to get access to some of these other fishing areas is important to this government. We are looking at that through the Recreational Fishing Access Working Group and to get to some of those areas …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the minister to conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr NATT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The road networks and the access to these areas is important and it is fantastic to hear that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will be considering the advice of the Recreational Fishing Access Working Group in many cases to see what access we can get to some of these remote and regional areas for fishing.
In finishing, Madam Speaker, the management by my Fisheries Group is of the highest class, as is the groundbreaking research that has been undertaken by this group. I recognise the work that the Fisheries Group does. I can assure everyone that they really do punch above their weight. They are dedicated to their roles, the people of the Northern Territory and sustainability of our fishery. I cannot speak highly enough of the work that they have undertaken to ensure that we maintain, manage effectively, and sustain our fishery. As long as I am in this role, Madam Speaker, I will continue to ensure that the future of our fishery remains healthy and well managed.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I put on the record my thanks to you, your office, and staff of the Assembly for all your assistance with my trip interstate under the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
I was keen to look at aquaculture developments in the Port Lincoln/Coffin Bay region of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. Whilst Port Lincoln has long been established as a centre for research into aquaculture, particularly tuna, the fishing village of Coffin Bay has more recently been gaining a very strong reputation as a centre for innovative research into oysters; in particular, the development and pursuit of very large, tender and flavoursome Pacific oysters which, I believe, will have the ability to command a huge premium in the market.
It is only a small village of about 600 permanent people, but it swells to over 4000 during the tourist and tuna season. Fortunately, I was there in the earlier part of December before the place filled up.
Before leaving Darwin, I had dinner at a Cullen Bay restaurant. I asked where the oysters were from and they said Coffin Bay. It was yet another reason to be headed that way. This should not be a surprise given that, despite its small size, Coffin Bay now exports to the UK, South Africa, Malaysia, and Hong Kong and, of course, in marketing, plans to push further into world markets as they develop a higher quality product.
It has a magnificent environment - pristine, with rich swellings of very strong nutrients providing a quick growing diet for the oysters in the beds outside Coffin Bay. In the early 1990s, they started quite small trials on those flats. They had fantastic growth rates and the industry simply has not looked back.
The success of the Elizabeth Bay pearling project under Arafura Pearls located 20 km south of Nhulunbuy raised the question to me as to whether the same clear waters that produce the pearls - in the case of Arafura Pearls - could also produce the oyster meat to an export quality such as at Coffin Bay. In fact, if it could be established, there would be a high potential for new aquaculture projects in the region and further potential for local indigenous ownership and employment. Looking after oysters is a labour-intensive industry, so there would be terrific employment opportunities for the Yolngu.
I had prearranged an inspection tour of an oyster aquaculture farm with Mr Kim Clark who lives in Port Lincoln but farms in the Coffin Bay region. Often the way, isn’t it? Unfortunately, 70 knot winds over the Eyre Peninsula including Port Lincoln and Coffin Bay, meant no boats left for the three days - of course, precisely the two days I was in Port Lincoln and three days in Coffin Bay when I intended to go out, and was invited out, for an on-site inspection. It simply was not possible to do that. I was disappointed on that score. It was the same period when the fires took hold on the peninsula next door and Kangaroo Island, with those very fierce winds that held up for quite some time.
I have written to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries asking what research and any findings into this industry have been carried out regarding potential viability for the Northern Territory because oysters have a fantastic future. If the Coffin Bay farmers succeed in their vision of producing these extra large, plump, tender and flavoursome Pacific oysters, they will capture even more of the available market at the moment. However, in all likelihood because it will be a new and premium product, they will not just continue to capture more of the market, I believe they will continue to grow the existing world market such as it is at the moment. Therein lies the opportunity for other producers to enter and satisfy a growing demand.
I also took the time to visit Timbercorp’s forestry project in the western part of Victoria. I believe in the work of our major forestry companies, Great Southern and Timbercorp, and have been a long-term investor in Timbercorp. There were early discussions in north-east Arnhem Land many years ago over the prospects of a forestry project. Some of that preliminary discussion was the possibility of growing forestry over reclaimed land once the bauxite had been removed, prior to Great Southern being established in the Tiwis. The soils are not great across what is largely a bauxite peninsula in the Gove region, but there is still a reasonable prospect of success given the very quick growth rate of these trees. However, those early discussions dissipated without result. Great Southern has shown what potential there is. It is a sign for other traditional owners to follow suit if they so wished and put those forestry projects on their country.
There have been very dry conditions across southern Australia over the past decade, particularly on the South Australian side of the border. Victoria has had reasonable rains the last two winters and a bit this summer, but the South Australian side, having more dry conditions than usual over the last 10 years, has slowed those growth rates. That is not an issue likely to affect forestry in the Northern Territory, given the reliability of our Wet Season rainfall. Nonetheless, both those companies are large and robust, and they will play a role in global warming strategies into the future.
My thanks to the Speaker and the staff of the Assembly for their assistance with this trip.
I commend Don McKinnon from Nhulunbuy High School who has been the coordinator for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards for many years, and his colleague, Hayden Woodroffe, who are taking a group of Duke’s students on the Kokoda Trail. Both experienced walkers, Don and Hayden have organised a team of students and adults - between 30 and 35 people at the moment - to tackle the trail in June. Recent media reports detailing local traditional owners’ wishes to mine the first part of the Kokoda Trail have cast doubts over the excursion unless it can be resolved quickly. I believe there has been quite strong movement on the issue. Approximately 6000 people each season walk the trail; it does provide employment for guides and porters, and royalties are paid by the trekking walkers to the villagers.
This trail is a very important part of both Australian and Papua New Guinea shared military and social history. Whilst walking the trail is never going to provide the financial benefit a mine may bring, you have to consider that it is probably an infinitely better prospect for the environment and a long-term sustainable income flow than you might get from a mine. Of course, that is up to the government there and the owners to work through with the mining interest.
As a Duke’s volunteer on the proposed high school’s trip I have a quite vested interest in the outcome. I thank Hayden Woodroffe for his very thoughtful, considerate invitation to me to join the group. I am excited by the challenge to be part of the high school team. I understand the Prime Minister of Australia is visiting soon if he has not already. I wish him well in his talks on this matter as Australia has been a strong proponent of seeking worldwide heritage, in conjunction and at the invitation of Papua New Guinea.
I congratulate our Australia Day Award recipients. This year’s Citizen of the Year Award went to Fiona Pearce, and Young Citizen, Dominic Bulters. Fiona earned, deservedly so, recognition through her tireless efforts organising fundraising efforts in community events and, in particular, the Relay for Life. The 18-hour event raised over $48 000 for cancer research. Not a bad effort for one person in a small town. Fiona continues to volunteer for community fundraisers to assist families and people in need. She is actively involved in a number of sporting clubs.
Dominic Bulters received his award for his contribution to both Nhulunbuy High School and the community. He is just an outstanding role model to his peers. He frequently represents students at forums and community events. He served on the student representative council, he has been house captain, and he is an enthusiastic sportsman participating in swimming and surf lifesaving. He is also a member of the Foundation for Young Australia for Your Eyes Only committee as a media liaison, and has travelled to Melbourne as a member of the Youth Change. He is a very fine young man. He has a terrific future ahead with his commitment and his enthusiasm to absolutely all aspects of family and community life. I am delighted that he is also part of the high school team that will be tackling the Kokoda Trail. I look forward to sharing his company on that trail in June.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last night when I gave an adjournment I spoke on the Australia Day celebrations in Katherine. One of the young people I did not have a lot of information on was our Junior Sportsperson of the Year, Hayley Glass. Tonight, I put on the Parliamentary Record the achievements of Hayley.
Australia Day Katherine Times Junior Sportsperson of the Year was Hayley Kathleen Kara Glass. Hayley, aged 9, is the second daughter of Katherine-born parents, Allan and Katherine Glass, who was a Kelly, daughter of Jill and Douglas Kelly of Katherine. Hayley has sisters, Courtney, 10, and Jasmine, three.
Hayley’s love for judo has seen her achieve eight gold medals and one silver medal in 2007 inter-club tournaments in Katherine, Jabiru and Darwin. Hayley has also received the award for the most improved Junior for 2006 and 2007. She has recently received her brown belt in judo with the Katherine Judo Club.
Little Athletics is another sport that Hayley loves. She achieved Age Champion in 2006 and 2007, with her favourite events being shot put, javelin and discus. Hayley has also represented Katherine Athletics Club in the 2007 NT Athletics Championships in Darwin, receiving one gold medal, one silver medal and one bronze medal for her efforts. Hayley has also achieved Age Champion for 2007 in swimming and athletics at her school, St Joseph’s College, Katherine. Hayley has just joined the Katherine Swimming Club and is due to go to her first swimming competition this month in Darwin.
Hayley comes from a very sporty background, with her Poppa, Douglas Kelly, being one of the Northern Territory’s legends in Aussie Rules, Rugby and basketball. I must say that Poppa Douglas Kelly and Nanna Jill Kelly support their three granddaughters at all their sporting activities that they are involved with in Katherine. They are always there as a great support for them. Hayley is very sporty, also like her uncle, Patrick Kelly. Hayley’s sporting idol is her cousin and mentor, Stevie Kelly, who also achieved Sportsperson of the Year award in 2005 - altogether a very athletic family and one of great achievements. As I said last night, Hayley is only nine years of age but she has certainly jam-packed quite a bit into her life already.
The 26th of January each year brings back a tide of mixed emotions for many people in Katherine when we reflect on the 1998 Australia Day floods in Katherine. For those of us who lived through the experience, we do not want to go through it again. Unfortunately, we are not in control of that, but we can but hope and pray that it does not happen again. This year marked the 10th anniversary and Katherine Regional Arts organised a wonderful commemorative evening to reflect on the flood.
Katherine Revisited, a reflection of the 10th anniversary of the 1998 Australia Day Flood, was held in the Katherine Cinema foyer and Cinema Caf beginning at 6.30 pm. The Deputy Chief Minister, Marion Scrymgour, opened the event in which there were 43 exhibits. These exhibits included photographs, items that were rescued, and artwork that depicted the flood. At 7.30 pm, we entered the cinema to watch a performance by local people called Watermark, which was choreographed by playwright, Alana Valentine. Alana’s notes in the program are as follows:
- It was when I first came to Katherine in 2006 that people started telling me stories of the Katherine flood in 1998. During my three weeks residency, I wandered down to O’Keefe House and had my first encounter with the traces of that great deluge of 1998. Then in workshops with writers at Katherine Regional Arts, I played a radio feature I had made about my visit to New Orleans, just after Hurricane Katrina, and participants reacted to the documentary inclusions about that flooded city with stories of their own.
When I came back in 2007 to record stories by the Katherine Region Writers Group for an ABC radio Regional Production Fund program, I was struck again by the unresolved feelings and emotions aroused by any mention of the 1998 disaster.
So when Katherine Regional Arts asked me to write a stage play to commemorate the 10th anniversary, I was intrigued to access written testimony from the time and recorded interviews, conducted by Toni Tapp Coutts to fill in the background to the lingering grief and disquiet that seemed to run under many aspects of my encounters in Katherine. All of the scenes in this play are based on real life stories - collapsed together, abbreviated, embellished - but all of them come from the words and experiences of Katherine locals.
The play is not an attempt to recreate the reality of the flood, photographs do that far better than words, but instead to do what plays do best, look at human nature, in this case, under the pressure of natural disaster. Such events illuminate diverse aspects of our humanity and I hope, ten years later, that it will be healing, confronting, amusing and moving to reflect on an event that is an indelible part of Katherine’s proud history.
The local people who made up the cast of this moving production included Tess Nekrasov, Greg and Anica Schmidt, Cerise King, Natina Eggleton, Bruce Hocking, Phillip Morrow, Sue Jones, Toni Tapp Coutts, Val Wardley, Leith Davis, Rhian Wardley, Madeline Ingrames, Petrena Ariston, Shannon Coutts, Martin Wittenberu, Alice Beilby, Danielle Aquino, Patricia Elliott, and Cecilia Johns. The sound was organised by Jayne Nankivell.
The packed theatre thoroughly enjoyed the hard work that had gone into putting this evening together. It was very much appreciated by all of us who were privileged to be there. It certainly revived mixed emotions for many people. In addition to the members of the cast who made it such a success, I acknowledge Moira McCreesh, Teresa Cummings and Kerryn Taylor who did so much behind the scenes. Well done, Katherine Regional Arts.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I provide the Assembly with some information in regard to Australia Day Awards winners in my electorate. I was delighted this year to have the NT Achiever of the Year in my electorate in Batchelor; Mr Bruce Jones. Bruce has been described as having a genuine community spirit, a true Territorian, and a great achiever when nominated by Lisa Wain, the Coomalie Community Government Council, CEO. Bruce was placed in Dr Barnardo’s Homes in England at the age of five and came out to Australia by ship at the age of 10. He grew up in the Barnardo’s Home.
He came to the Territory in 1963 to shoot buffaloes commercially, and then worked as a driller’s offsider/truck driver/plant operator at the Rum Jungle Mine. He was employee and union rep at the mine, which had very high membership until the mine closed.
He represented the Northern Territory in hockey. He played darts, cricket, lawn bowls, served on the committee of the cricket club, and was captain and also vice captain for a time. He was a very active person. He rode competitively in Darwin, Katherine and the Mt Isa rodeos as a bull rider and, in 1966, was the Territory champion cowboy at the Katherine Rodeo. He certainly is an outgoing character.
Bruce is married to Ros, a local girl from the Meneling Station and they have lived happily in Batchelor for the last 31 years. More recently, they moved to a 20-acre block outside of Batchelor, and have lived there for nine years. Bruce and Ros have two daughters and five grandchildren.
Once the mine closed, he worked with the Department of Community Development, keeping the town and surrounding areas nice, neat and tidy. A mine ambulance was given to the town of Batchelor and Bruce became the inaugural volunteer for the newly-formed Batchelor Adelaide River District Ambulance Service. Approximately 10 years ago, he became a member of the Order of St John, where he was made a Serving Brother, and previously received a Priory Vote of Thanks for his volunteer work for St John Ambulance.
This year, Bruce received his 30-year service medal from Fire and Emergency Services, which is a great effort. He has been the Deputy Fire Captain for many years and now remains a volunteer with the local Fire and Emergency Services group. Bruce is also a Justice of the Peace.
In 1991, the Coomalie Community Government Council was formed and Bruce has been an elected member since its inception. He makes a huge effort on the council; between 2003 and 2006, he was president for a term. In 1999, he was awarded the Australia Day Citizen Award from the council. He is an active volunteer with the Clean Up Australia Day in the area of the Litchfield Park Road. He is always volunteering for the Australia Day Breakfast in his usual attire, which is Australia flag boxer shorts and shirt and cap.
Bruce took up a position with the Batchelor College in 1983, which then became the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, and is currently on long service leave and working from home. Bruce is a fantastic character and has given to that community for so long. It is well deserved that he be recognised for his achievements to not only Batchelor but to the Northern Territory.
The Citizen of the Year for the Coomalie area was Beryl Deveraux. Beryl has lived in the Coomalie region with her family since 1972. She is willing to lend a hand to her neighbours and friends and she is an icon for the local area. Six of Beryl’s seven children attended Adelaide River and Batchelor Area School and was always contributing to the local school fete and other fundraising events. Her contribution continues today by supporting her grandchildren.
In 1975, she began work in the kitchen of the Batchelor College as a cook before retiring in 1990. She has been an active member, for over 30 years, of the Rum Jungle Bowls Club as a competitive participant, and also held senior administrative positions at the club. She prepared smorgasbords of delicious food for social events and the tournaments that were held by the club. She successfully exhibited for over 30 years in the Top End shows in areas of cooking and craft. She was a runner-up in 2004 for Mother of the Year. She knits jumpers of Territory and Australian designs which she raffles to support her son, who is blind from an accident.
Congratulations to Beryl, she is a well-deserved winner.
Other award winners on Australia Day from the Batchelor/Adelaide River area included the Young Citizen of the Year, which was won by Damon Hunt. The Student Citizen Award was won by Jazlin McIntosh-Dunbar from Adelaide River Primary School and Melinda Roddick from the Batchelor Area School. Jazlin put on a great performance at the Adelaide River Christmas show last year at which I was the MC. Congratulations to her.
Young Sportsperson of the Year was won by three girls. They refuse to split up and they do all their events together. They are Sarah Roddick, Melinda Roddick and Sharna Mulhall. The male Sportsperson of the Year was Phil Maunder and the female Sportsperson of the Year was Rose Phillips. The Community Event of the Year was the fabulous Lingalonga Festival which grows from year to year. Unfortunately, they have not put a calendar out this year. There was the Bachelors in Batchelor the first year, then the Bacherloresses in Batchelor the second year. Unfortunately, we do not have a calendar this year but, hopefully, next year.
There were certificates of appreciation given to Paul Maccioni and Robert Northey who are local police officers in Batchelor and also to Col Wain, who is a volunteer with the council. He is the husband of Lisa Wain at the council. Col gives his time freely to play at community events as an entertainer. Jason Scott, who is also with the council as a recreation officer, received a certificate of appreciation. Jason is new in that role but he has certainly given his time outside of hours and done a fine job for the community.
Matthew Renshaw won the acknowledgement. He was selected to be on the Chief Minister’s Youth Round Table and was also nominated for the NT Young Achiever Award. Matthew has done a great job with his work within the community and it is a great acknowledgment. I am sure he will do a great job for that region on the Youth Round Table.
The local Heroes of the Year for the Coomalie area were the firefighters from the Bush Fires Council who went to Victoria when the bushfires occurred there. I will mention their names because they did a fabulous effort, not only in their roles but they certainly served the Territory very well there. The other volunteer groups and even the professional firefighters were so impressed with the way these guys performed and their professional approach to firefighting. Congratulations to Bruce Jones, Larry Warner, Vic Fox, Greg Taylor, Fred Burns, Andrew Turner, John Whatley, Sue Lamb, Ted Murphy, Rob Moloney, Lee Humphris, Christine Corney and Kristina Lamb.
Moving on to more acknowledgements from Australia Day, at Pine Creek the Citizen of the Year was Gaye Lawrence. Gaye is a long-time member of the Pine Creek community. She has been on almost everything and I will list those in a second. She served on countless committees and has been the Secretary of the Pine Creek Primary School since 1989. Prior to that, she spent four years as a teacher’s assistant and four years as a part-time secretary at the school. She has a huge record of achievement and contribution to the Pine Creek community.
She has been the President of the National Trust of Pine Creek for 25 years; a National Trust Councillor for 10 years; a part-time librarian of Pine Creek Library for 25 years; President of the Pine Creek council for one term; Vice President of the Pine Creek Community Government Council for two terms; Vice President of the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory for three years; parent member of Callistemon House Board of Management; Board member of Outback Art; member of the Women’s Advisory Council to the Chief Minister; the President and founding member of the Pine Creek Tourist Association; the Treasurer of the Isolated Children’s and Parents Association Northern Territory; Secretary of the Pine Creek School Committee for three years; Secretary and Treasurer of the Pine Creek Race Club for four years; President of the Territory Craft NT (Pine Creek Branch); and lastly, the Pine Creek correspondent for the Katherine Advertiser for two years.
She has done a huge amount of work. She has not, obviously, sat back; she has wanted to be involved in things. They are the groups which drive that community and keep that community spirit going. Gaye has also organised, taught and administered several art projects in town, one of which won the Eric Johnston Northern Territory Achiever Award in 1996. She was a driving force behind the first Goldrush and Didgeridoo Festival in 1996, the first Sports Challenge in 1997, and the first Pine Creek Art Prize in 2007. She is certainly a worthy recipient. Having been there on the day, everybody acknowledged her huge contribution to that community.
The Young Citizen of the Year was won by Christine Alangale for her contribution to the Pine Creek community. Christine often helps out at local events. She decorated the multi-resource centre by herself in preparation for the kids’ Christmas disco, and was there on the night helping supervise the kids and organise games. She has decorated and helped Santa distribute lolly bags at the disco, as well as cleaning up afterwards. She has volunteered at the Sports Challenge and is always willing to help at community events.
Christine attended Katherine High School and has gained experienced working with children at MacFarlane Primary School as part of her school’s Vocational Education Training program. Congratulations to Christine. She is a young lady with a great deal of promise, not only with Pine Creek but in the wider world.
The Pine Creek Community Event of the Year was won by the Biggest Morning Tea, which has raised more than $12 000 for cancer research over the last 10 years. That is a huge effort for a small community. The chief organiser for that is Amanda Denouel who has a dedicated team of volunteers and sponsors. This event has become one of Pine Creek’s biggest charity fundraisers. They do a lot of work down there and it is certainly a great acknowledgement for her.
The local Hero Awards went to Kate Bohning, Gary Brown, Aaron Stone and Sue Valentine. Sue is the CEO of the Pine Creek Council. She is the longest serving CEO of a local government council in the Northern Territory. All those award recipients are acknowledged tonight. They are great people, they give to their community and they make their community so much better for everybody who lives there, so congratulations again.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about two Centralians who have received the honour of being named Centralian of the Year and Young Centralian of the Year. For 2008, the Centralian of the Year was June Noble, and Tanika Richards won the Young Centralian of the Year. I would like to talk about them both, and separately.
June Noble has been a strong part of the Central Australian community since she arrived with her husband, Bob, in 1963. Over the last 44 years, June has been a constant contributor to the community, and anyone who lives in Alice Springs would know that. June has four children, two boys and two girls, and they are a lovely family. Andrew was born in 1967, Jennifer was born in 1968, Alistair was born in 1970, and Fiona was born in 1972. All of the Noble children were born and raised in Alice Springs. June’s eldest son, Andrew, lives in Victoria, Jennifer is a police officer based in Cairns, but both Alistair and Fiona continue to live and work in Alice Springs.
When the young bride, June, first came to Central Australia, she settled at Amoonguna, where she was in charge of the preschool. Andrew was born while June and Bob lived at Amoonguna, and the new family lived there for three years.
Upon moving to Alice Springs, June and Bob started a business called Noble the Plumber. They operated Noble the Plumber for 26 years and, during this time, Bob apprenticed both his sons who continue the plumbing tradition today.
June has been involved in Quota for 35 years and, during this time, she has been president, secretary and member of the board. I was saddened to see, in a recent article in the Centralian Advocate, that Quota has to close because they have been unable to expand their membership base. June should be recognised for the efforts she put in over many years.
June became involved in the Alice Springs Youth Centre in the late 1970s, and was awarded life membership of the Alice Springs Youth Centre. During her time at the youth centre, she was involved with management and operational aspects, and took an interest in all of the programs that the centre offered to the youth of Alice Springs. The constitution was restructured in 1992 to ensure the longevity of the centre, and to ensure that it could be better managed. Currently, the Alice Springs Youth Centre offers a strong boxing program, martial arts, gymnasium facilities and a skating rink.
June was actively involved in the Life Education Program and has seen tremendous outcomes with that program, but was disappointed when it lost its funding and ceased.
June resumed teaching in 1980 at the Rona Glynn Preschool, where she worked for 19 years until her retirement in 1999. June was also involved in the Northern Territory Council of Government Schools Organisation (NT COGSO), she was on the NT executive as the Alice Springs representative during the 1970s and 1980s, and participated in decisions for teaching appointments. June is now a life member of NT COGSO.
June was elected to the Alice Springs Town Council as an alderman, and served in that role from 1992 to 2000. She undertook two terms as alderman and, in her last year, served as Deputy Mayor. During her time on council, June was instrumental in the placement of the two ‘Welcome to Alice Springs’ signs north and south of the town, and lobbied hard to establish alfresco dining in the mall.
June officially retired from council in 2000 and has thoroughly enjoyed travelling nationally and internationally ever since. June has been a member of the Australia Day Committee since 1992. June has also been an official visitor to the Alice Springs gaol since 1992, where she meets with prisoners and reports to the Minister for Correctional Services on matters of concern. June sees her appointment as a representative as a real privilege, and thoroughly values the role she has undertaken and enjoys her regular visits to the prison.
However, there is more, and one can see that June Noble is a worthy recipient of the honour she received as a result of her long-standing and widespread involvement in the community.
June was involved with the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame for 15 years, since its inception in 1993. She attended the public meeting called to set up the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in February 1993. As member No 88, June joined the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in August 1993, she was a member of the interim committee which formed and incorporated the association, and has been a committee member since 1994. June was actively involved in Molly’s Bash, which she supported for 10 years, and that was organised by the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame. Today, June is the Vice President of the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame and a regular at the volunteer desk at the new Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame on Stuart Terrace in Alice Springs - and what a wonderful facility that is.
At June’s retirement from teaching in 1999, she had served 22 years in the Northern Territory government. Also in 1999, the International Year of Older Persons, June was awarded the Commonwealth Recognition Award for Senior Australians. In 2001, June won the Chief Minister’s Women’s Achievement Award. June was also an inaugural member of the Seniors Advisory Council established by the Chief Minister in 2003.
June always goes into bat for a good cause, and has served on the committee of the Alice Springs Art Foundation for over 10 years, currently in the role of Vice President. The Alice Springs Art Foundation runs the national biennial Alice Prize. The Alice Prize is a contemporary mixed media art prize with $15 000 for first prize, and a four-week residency in Alice Springs. Up to 300 entries are received for the Alice Prize, and they are preselected to about 60 entries, and those people are then asked to submit their art work. This year’s Alice Prize exhibition will be run at the Araluen Arts Centre in May 2008. I encourage all members of the Legislative Assembly, particularly those in the Top End, to come to that wonderful exhibition.
June Noble has been a large part of Central Australia for more than 20 years, and she is active in the community and widely known as a woman who will help out wherever needed. It really is the case that she is widely and warmly regarded. I am very pleased to know her. I, on behalf of all honourable members, wish her the very best for her future and heartily congratulate her on becoming the Centralian of the Year.
Tanika Richards was named the Young Centralian of the Year for 2008. Tanika was born in Alice Springs in September 1988, and has made it her home since then, although I believe she will shortly leave to pursue studies interstate.
From a very early age, Tanika showed an interest in music, and she started learning the piano when she was only three. Shortly after that, she commenced ballet lessons with the then Alice Springs Ballet School, now known as the Duprada Dance Company. At age four, Tanika joined the Alice Springs Junior Singers and worked through the choir levels, ending in cantori at nine years of age and, along the way, performing in numerous community events until its closure.
As a student of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College until 2003, and then of St Philip’s College until 2006, Tanika completed her Year 12 exams very successfully and has spent her gap year teaching music at Living Waters Primary School, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College, and St Philip’s College, as well as privately, sharing her love of music with students of all ages.
Tanika’s commitment to personal development in the arts culminated in 2006 as she completed her Associate Diploma in Music in Piano with the Australian Music Examinations Board exams. As the first person to do so from Alice Springs, this required Tanika to visit Adelaide for master classes from time to time. In 2005, Tanika was the first person in Alice Springs to complete her Suzuki Level 6 Graduation in Piano, playing from memory the Italian Concerto by Bach, whilst still at school completing Year 11 studies.
Over the years, Tanika has performed in numerous concerts such as the recitals sponsored by the Alice Springs Teachers’ Association, assembly concerts at St Philip’s College, and the Centralian Eisteddfod. Tanika has also performed at the Alice Springs Music Teachers’ Gala.
Tanika was one of the founding members of a flute ensemble called Flute Salad, which came together in 2002 and performed at community events until 2007. The group comprised students ranging in age and abilities. Tanika, as the most senior player, always nurtured and encouraged the younger, less experienced players, playing duets with them at concerts and performances to encourage them and build their confidence. As a member of Flute Salad and as its leader, Tanika has toured with the group to Canberra, Perth, and through South Australia, and was thrilled to be part of the launch of the group’s CD Fiesta Salsa in April 2007.
As an accomplished saxophonist, Tanika was invited to join the saxophone quartet called Saxsational in early 2004 and has been a valued member of the group since then.
As a valued member of Flute Salad, Saxsational and Flaming Geckos, which was a mixed instrument ensemble, Tanika has performed in many venues, from Parliament House in Canberra to Bundaleer Forrest, Glen Helen and at the Top End Folk Festival.
In December 2004, Tanika undertook a major community-based project for the Duprada Dance company forming the Duprada Music Ensemble. Tanika agreed to arrange the music composed by Chopin for the ballet, Les Sylphides, and brought together an ensemble to perform with the ballet company in a live performance in June 2005. Apart from the technical challenge that this presented, Tanika added to the challenge by including a number of young musicians who had no experience at this sort of performance. The inaugural Duprada Music Ensemble was such an extremely well-received performance that the project was repeated in 2007, this time for the ballet, Paquita.
Tanika has been responsible for arranging, directing and conducting the Suzuki Graduation Concert Ensemble each year, and has performed medleys from the Lion King, Christmas themes and, more recently in December, A Small World medley from the Disney movies.
Tanika is the leader of the Catholic Church Choir in which she sings and plays the piano, or accompanies the choir on flute. In a bid to encourage the other young woodwind players who form part of this group, she has arranged a number of pieces, such as The Prayer, From a Distance, When you Believe, and Panis Angelicus for the ensemble to perform during Sunday Mass.
Tanika won the Senior Music Scholarship at St Philip’s College Alice Springs for Years 11 and 12, taking out the music awards for 2004 and 2006 as well.
Academically, Tanika has always achieved honours at school each year, and was the recipient of the Middle School Research Award for 2004. She followed extended studies in both French and Music, and has completed her Year 12 exams in both subjects whilst in Year 11. She was also a Prefect at St Philip’s College for 2005 and 2006.
Tanika was also the recipient of the University of Adelaide’s AMEB Grade 7 and Grade 5 Flute Awards.
Tanika has just auditioned at the Australian National University and has been accepted to further her studies in music in 2008. She has also auditioned at the University of Adelaide’s Elder Conservatorium and is presently awaiting the outcome of that audition.
My heartfelt congratulations to Tanika Richards, a fine example of a young person from Alice Springs, and a very worthy recipient of the Young Centralian of the Year. I wish her well. It has always been a pleasure, in any event, to attend the St Philip’s and OLSH graduation nights. I have been there regularly for some years now, and Tanika’s name is always mentioned and she always received an array of awards, some of which I have mentioned tonight.
On behalf of all honourable members, I congratulate Tanika. I am sure that members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory join with me in congratulating her and wishing her the very best for the future.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016