2010-08-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students accompanied by Ms Michele Jones and Ms Joanne Forest. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 142 petitioners praying that the construction of the Telstra telecommunications facility at Lot 8090, Larapinta, Alice Springs be stopped. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 605 petitioners praying that a heavy vehicle diversion beside Railway Terrace in Katherine CBD be stopped. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members a response to petition No 30 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the governance and administration provisions for the Territory Insurance Office, TIO. Most notably, the bill will remove the TIO Board from the Motor Accidents Compensation (MAC) appeals process; remove the role of the MAC Compensation Contributions Commissioner from the Motor Vehicles Act; reduce the TIO Board size from six to three members, and abolish the role of the MAC Board member.
TIO is a statutory corporation that offers banking and insurance products on a commercial basis in competition with privately owned business. TIO also administers the Territory’s compulsory motor accident compensation scheme on behalf of the government.
There are two key pieces of legislation that establish the administrative and governance frameworks for TIO and the MAC scheme, namely, the Territory Insurance Office Act and the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, (MAC Act).
In 2008 and 2009, I approved Treasury and TIO jointly reviewing the TIO Act and the MAC Act focusing on statutory and governance framework issues. The TIO Act and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 implements the recommendations of the reviews. The review of the TIO Act identified a number of amendments aimed at improving the governance and administration of TIO, including aligning the governance and administration arrangements with the Government Owned Corporations Act and the Corporations Act 2001, and adopting contemporary practices in relation to penalties and governance guidelines. The bill seeks to implement these measures.
In 2006, a range of governance and statutory measures were introduced to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the management of the MAC scheme. These included the establishment of the statutory fund to hold the assets of the MAC scheme separate to those of TIO’s commercial activities, and the appointment of a member to the TIO Board to specifically represent the interests of the MAC scheme. In addition, the TIO Board also introduced measures to reinforce the separation of the MAC business from TIO’s commercial activities through a service level agreement and the prudential framework for TIO was enhanced to provide a greater level of oversight of TIO and MAC operations and performance.
The reviews highlighted that, given all these measures are now in place, the need for a specific MAC member on the TIO Board no longer exists. Further, continuation of this requirement could contribute to less effective decision-making and reduce flexibility in identifying individuals with the necessary skills and expertise to effectively manage TIO as a corporate entity. As such, the bill removes the statutory requirement to appoint a MAC member. Nonetheless, accountability of the management of the MAC scheme will continue to be improved through the separation of MAC and TIO business at board meetings, and strengthened performance reporting requirements in the statements of corporate intent. These measures will be implemented administratively by TIO.
Furthermore, the proposed bill reduces the required minimum number of board members from six to three. As responsible minister, this will increase the flexibility I will have in appointing a board with the necessary expertise and experience.
The bill also amends the TIO Act to allow monies to be transferred from the MAC fund into the Central Holding Authority for the purpose of promoting road safety. Currently, amounts held in the MAC fund may only be paid into an appropriate agency operating account for this purpose. Requiring funds to be paid into the CHA and then distributed to the relevant agency will strengthen the accountability for road safety funding, and does not alter the current total quantum of road safety funding provided from the MAC fund. Any change to the amount of MAC funds allocated for road safety would continue to be a matter for government.
The bill also amends the MAC Act to streamline the appeals process by removing the current role of the TIO Board in determining applications for compensation. It also introduces a more rigorous internal review process. Currently, where an application for compensation under the MAC Act, or for a variation in a benefit, is rejected by TIO the claimant can refer the matter to the Designated Person (DP) for review. If the claimant is aggrieved by the DP’s determination, the claimant can lodge an appeal with the TIO Board. If the board does not decide in the claimant’s favour, the matter can then be appealed to the MAC Tribunal, whose decision is final. The MAC Tribunal is constituted by a Supreme Court Judge and operates in accordance with statutory rules.
TIO Board members are not appointed as judicial officers and need not have the necessary legal and medical expertise to review decisions taken by specialist TIO employees. Nonetheless, under the MAC Act, the full TIO Board is required to consider each claimed referred to it in full.
Removing the role of the TIO Board from the appeals process, while maintaining the existing avenues of appeal to both the DP and the MAC Tribunal, would provide for a more timely and effective process for the resolution of claims. In addition, to help achieve a timely resolution of relatively minor grievances, TIO will introduce an optional internal review process administered by a TIO employee with specialist MAC Act claims expertise. Aggrieved claimants can opt to have their claim reviewed through this process prior to seeking resolution through the DP. It is expected that this process will significantly expedite applications for compensation under the MAC Act, without removing the claimant’s right to review and appeal of decisions. As mentioned before, the ultimate right of appeal to the independent MAC Tribunal will remain.
Finally, the bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act to remove the role of the Compensation Contributions Commissioner. The role of the commissioner was introduced into the Motor Vehicles Act in 2006 to independently determine annual contribution amounts for the MAC scheme. MAC contribution amounts are paid by motorists at the time of registering a vehicle. Prior to this, contribution amounts were determined by the government, with reference to recommendations of the TIO Board.
The commissioner is required to make determinations in consultation with TIO and me in accordance with the prudential parameters established in the Motor Vehicle Regulations. However, shortcomings have been identified with the arrangements since the commissioner’s appointment in January 2007, namely, that the prudential parameters for contribution determinations are not responsive to short-term changes in MAC claims costs and investment returns, and that the process for making determinations is administratively convoluted.
As such, the bill removes the role of the commissioner and implements simplified arrangements for determining MAC contribution amounts. These include automatic annual indexation of contribution amounts supplemented by external export reviews every three years to ensure contribution levels remain sufficient to ensure the longer-term financial sustainability of the MAC scheme. Where circumstances dictate, such as a significant economic downturn or period of market volatility I, as minister responsible, may request the review to be undertaken more frequently. In such circumstances, contribution amounts may be increased by a rate different from the indexation amount for a given year where an independent review indicates that it would be prudent to do so.
I believe the amendments before the House today would enhance the governance and accountability framework for the TIO and MAC scheme.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before I adjourn I place on the record my thanks to the Treasurer for the briefing yesterday which was highly informative and useful. I move that debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. Part IIA provides a regime to deal with persons being tried by the Supreme Court who are believed to be unfit to stand trial, or whose mental competence to commit a crime is an issue.
Relevant to the bill being introduced today, Part IIA empowers the Supreme Court to order that a person who is found to be unfit to stand trial or to be mentally incompetent may be subject to supervision. The court may make a custodial or non-custodial supervision order which provides for the treatment and management of a supervised person.
When passing Part IIA in 2002, parliament intended that, where practicable, supervised persons under a custodial supervision order should be held in custody somewhere other than prison, and that the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Families would have responsibility for their treatment and management. If the person had to be held in prison, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice would have this role.
That prison should be the last resort is evident from section 43ZA of the Criminal Code Act, which provides that:
The Criminal Code Act provides that the court can make a custodial supervision order committing a person to custody in ‘an appropriate place’ other than a prison.
To give effect to a custodial supervision order there must be the ability to enforce the order by restraining the supervised person if necessary. Police and prison officers have this ability by virtue of their office, but no other group of people does.
The practical inability of the court to make a custodial supervision order committing a person to an appropriate place other than a prison was revealed in March 2010 when the Chief Justice, Hon Brian R Martin, ruled in the matter of R v Ebatarinja, that the use of restraint by any person other than police or prison officers is not authorised by Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. The bill amends Part IIA to empower the Supreme Court to authorise, in its discretion, the use of restrictive practices to enforce a custodial supervision order, or to prevent the supervised person from harming him or herself or another person.
The amendments will give full effect to the intended policy behind the legislation. I emphasise that the court will have the power to make the order in its discretion. As it currently does when deciding to make either a custodial supervision order or a non-custodial order, the court must assess the risks, both to the community and the supervised person, of making the order.
In some respects these amendments are an interim measure to provide for an enforceable custodial supervision order in a place other than a prison to be made. It is interim in the sense when a secure mental health and behavioural unit is built within the new prison, this will provide an appropriate place for at least some persons placed on a custodial supervision order. However, the amendments in the bill also provide more than an interim measure. They expand the options available to the court for dealing with supervised persons, either under custodial supervision orders or non-custodial supervision orders, providing a ‘step down’ from prison to some other custodial supervision order, so supervised persons have a better chance of success on their order and can, potentially, be fully reintegrated into the community.
Fundamentally, this bill provides an alternative to inappropriate incarceration in prisons of people who have not been found guilty of an offence. The bill provides only persons authorised by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Families will be able to use reasonable force to enforce a court order, or to prevent a person harming him or herself or anyone else. Any use of reasonable force or containment of a supervised person must be conducted in accordance with the supervision directions made by the CEO of the Department of Health and Families and gazetted as a statutory instrument, thus giving it the force of law.
Importantly, the supervision directions will incorporate provisions for the independent oversight of the use of reasonable force in order to protect supervised persons, and to ensure such measures are used in accordance with best practice.
The bill also inserts an indemnity provision indemnifying persons, other than police or prison officers authorised to use reasonable force, from criminal or civil liability, provided the use of reasonable force was in good faith in the exercise of a power or function under Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. The indemnity provision does not affect any liability the Territory would have in respect of an act or omission of an authorised person.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to correct ambiguities and procedural issues which have been picked up by practitioners in this field, and judges, since the introduction of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. These amendments include:
giving the court the power to adjourn a hearing for an application to vary or revoke a supervision order;
allowing the court to backdate a supervision order to the date the supervised person was first taken into custody;
allowing the court to adjourn a major review beyond the expiry of a fixed term, because it is often the case the court cannot complete the review in the time frame so the court needs the power to adjourn the review while still keeping the supervision in force;
deleting the word ‘expires’ in section 43ZK in relation to a supervision order because a supervision order cannot expire. A supervision order is of an indefinite duration and can only be revoked by a court; and
allowing legal counsel to use their independent discretion in any hearing under Part IIA where an accused or supervised person is unable to instruct them.
The bill sets out a transitional clause which will make the amendments to allow adjournments and the making of interim orders to the bill retrospective so they apply to any proceedings in relation to a supervision order that have already been commenced. The remainder of the clauses in the bill deal with minor amendments of a statute law revision nature.
A number of NT government departments were consulted during the development of the bill, in particular, the Department of Health and Families. The Director of Public Prosecutions, NAAJA, and the NT Legal Aid Commission were also consulted. The Department of Justice will keep stakeholders informed of the progress of these amendments and of the timing of their commencement, which will take place after the supervision directions have been gazetted.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 April 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for facilitating a briefing on this bill. Thanks to the staff from the minister’s office and the department for providing those briefings on not only the bill as a whole but the committee stage amendments which will be presented to the House today.
The Mineral Titles Bill has been a long time coming. There was talk of new mining legislation in the late 1990s by the then CLP government. The review of the act has been spoken of by this government since about 2002. Some eight years later we have a bill which I am guessing will take quite a deal of time to have effect by virtue of the length of time it will take for the regulations to be constructed. I hope it does not take too long, minister. I will be asking, in the committee stage, for an indication of how long these regulations might take.
I note there are a number of consequential amendments flowing from the introduction of this bill, and I am pleased they have been presented to the House this week. I do not want to appear critical for the sake of being critical, but eight years is a very long time to be waiting for new legislation of such importance to the Territory. In fact, one could describe the pace of this bill in much the same way as I describe the pace of the geothermal legislation - that being somewhat tectonic. Eight years it has taken. If you want to use the tectonic plates as an analogy - building up pressure, bumping and grinding against each other until the earthquake, on 29 April this year, when the bill was introduced. I daresay we will be seeing another two years or so of after-shocks while the matters arising, those consequential amendments and regulations, are sorted out.
However, we have a bill now. To some extent the length of time taken to bring this bill to parliament has served a purpose; the bill has been consulted very widely, probably to the point of ad nauseam. Even during the briefing I received on this bill it was iterated the bill had been over-consulted and industry was at the point of saying: ‘Just present the bill and have it passed’. Industry wants this bill done and dusted. Unfortunately, they will have to wait for some period of time, I imagine.
I have consulted with industry on this bill, seeking the input of those interested parties on matters which should be brought to the attention of government. I am pleased to say there are only a few issues which have been raised with me, and I will canvass those both in this debate and, later, in the committee stage. With that, I indicate a desire to take this to committee.
Once this bill commences as an act the current Mining Act will be repealed. The transitional matters are dealt with in Part 12, Division 1, and appear to quite adequately deal with matters which might reasonably arise. Those transitional arrangements deal with continuation of authorisation for construction at clause 195. I am pleased to see provision has been made in clause 196 for the continuation of fossicking areas, which had previously been declared under section 131(1) of the current act. That, at least, is a step in the right direction for those who fossick, both locals and visitors. I will return to speak about fossicking later.
I note clauses 197, 198, 199 and 200 cover the transitional matters as they relate to existing applications. These transitional arrangements are extremely important for those who have submitted applications for licences or permits under the current act. I have examined these clauses and I give credit to the department, and Parliamentary Counsel, who had a hand in constructing them. They appear to be quite comprehensive and leave little to chance; although I will say there are some clauses which concern me.
Those clauses are 198(3)(c)(ii) and 199(2)(b). Those clauses are worded almost exactly the same. They relate to the grant or renewal of corresponding applications, or the grant or renewal where there is no corresponding application respectively. Those clauses say, and I quote inter alia:
First, there will need to be a suitable regulation drafted which must prescribe the course of action for the minister to follow. Second, in the principles for transition at clause 193(2), there are six principles numbered (a) to (f) which give the minister what I would describe as a fairly subjective set of rules by which he will approve the grant or renewal of an application under this new act.
The clause says:
(1) A regulation or decision made for this part must be consistent with the principles for transition to the provisions of this act.
(f) to allow sufficient time to enable holders of non-compliant titles or non-compliant existing interests to meet requirements under this act.
Ordinarily, I would not be overly concerned about having a transitional arrangement such as this in place. However, I am concerned there appears to be no avenue of appeal for a person who, by virtue of a decision made by the minister under 198(3)(c)(ii) or 199(2)(b), must have that application dealt with in a way the minister considers appropriate.
My next concern is how long it will take before the regulations are constructed, and how long it will take for this bill to be passed into law. How long will this take? I suspect quite some time. It is not inconceivable that regulations for such an important act could take up to two years. I say this in light of other examples where we are waiting for what seems an inordinate amount of time for regulations to come into force, the Plant Health Act being one.
The Plant Health Act, I believe, is not yet in force despite being introduced on 30 October 2008 and passed in this House on 27 November 2008. I assume this act has not come into force because the regulations are not yet complete, and I hope the minister can correct me if I am wrong. We are 20 months down the track from passing the act with no regulations, and it is a strong indication there is no sense of urgency within government to have these matters dealt with.
Another example, the Building Amendment Bill introduced on urgency during estimates this year is still not in force because there is a delay putting together prescribed documents, I believe. How can we have a bill introduced on urgency still waiting for prescribed documents to enable it to come into force? Again, there is no sense of urgency.
In raising this point I need to impress upon the government subordinate legislation which needs to be brought in as a result of new legislation must be done as quickly as possible. I realise there will be, and always is, extensive consultation around the formulation of regulations for important acts such as the new Mineral Titles Bill; nonetheless, there needs to be a sense of urgency.
Looking at the Serious Crime Control Bill, and you would remember this is the bikie legislation the government touted as so important to the Northern Territory, we are almost a year down the track from the bill being passed and, lo and behold, no regulations there either. You will excuse my cynicism around how long it might take to get regulations under this bill …
Mr Elferink: Good point.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I digress a little; I hope I have made that point quite clear.
That is my concern, and I believe it is valid. The minister will be lending himself to a more subjective decision-making process in relation to the appeal process. That is an issue of and by itself, however may also present as an issue around consistency, fairness or transparency and, as I pointed out, the issue around the lack of appeal.
The bill seems to have this underlying paradigm of ‘use it or lose it’; I do not really have a problem with that. I want to deal with some areas at the back of the bill, and then I will move into the remainder of the bill.
Division 4 of Part 12 raises some concerns as it deals with non-compliant existing interests at clause 203. Going through that, clause 203(1) relates to the types of existing non-compliant interests being:
which relates to the entitlements of the person holding a miner’s right issued under sections 9 and 10 of the current act; and
Clause 203(2) says:
I am okay with that. Clause 203(3) says:
Clause 203(4) goes on to say:
(c) the holder may accept the minister’s decision, or make a submission to the minister, within the time specified in the notice;
(d) the holder is entitled to a review of the minister’s decision as prescribed by regulation;
(e) any other information required by regulation.
Clause 203(5) says:
I want to turn my mind to the part around the mineral claims. These claims exist presently by virtue of Part VII of the current act. I do not want to go into too much detail per se, however, mineral claims and miners’ rights will disappear when this bill becomes an act and is in force. Effectively, these will become non-compliant existing interests as per the new act. An example is the Grove Hill region near Pine Creek, and there are many others across the Territory. According to the new act, the minister will make a decision to convert that old title to a new title under the act, or assist in converting it to a new form of tenure, accept its surrender, or cancel the old title.
The minister makes a decision and the titleholder can either accept the decision or make a submission to the minister. This process vests an enormous amount of power in the minister, and one would hope he would get it right. A better approach might have been for the department to approach people with non-complying existing interests and gather submissions from them before the minister makes a decision. The minister may turn his mind to that in his closing speech.
I turn to other sections of the bill. These are fairly general sections, however, I want to cover them as it is important to, where possible in this House, digest this legislation then bring it back as lumps of information lay people can understand. There will be people listening to this who read legislation but do not fully understand it and leave it to us to interpret.
The definition of land has changed and is much clearer in its interpretation and clearly defines, through the Commonwealth Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act and, by extension, the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973, which, if I read those correctly, extends the jurisdiction of Northern Territory lands to the three nautical mile limit.
The act binds the Crown, except in relation to the exploration for and extraction of extractive minerals for use on roads and other infrastructure. That section is clearly unambiguous, makes sense, and is consistent with the current legislation.
In general terms, there are two distinct mineral titles provided under the bill - titles relating to minerals and titles relating to extraction minerals, where minerals are defined as inorganic elements or compounds, organic carbonate compound, coal, ignite, oil, shale or salt. Extractive minerals are described as soil, sand, gravel, rock and peat. Peat was formally described as a mineral, although I do not know if we have any peat lands in the Northern Territory, do we?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We do. Thank you, member for Nelson. I note petroleum and water are not covered by this bill.
The following are all considered mineral titles, often abbreviated to titles within the act. There is a mineral exploration licence - an EL; a mineral exploration licence in retention - an ELR; a mineral lease - an ML; an extractive mineral exploration licence - an EMEL; an extractive mineral permit - an EMP; an extractive mineral lease - an EML, and a mineral authority, which is MA. Fossicking and preliminary exploration are not considered titles in this bill.
I will go through each one, and to interpret some of this legislation for lay people, exploration licences are covered by clauses 26 to 32. They may be granted for up to six years, and every two operational years the minister may reduce the number of blocks subject to an EL, but may decide not to do so on application of a titleholder. The title may be renewed at the end of the six years for no more than two years for any one extension.
An EL application on Aboriginal land - clause 62 - states a person cannot enter into negotiations with a land council for consent to access their land under an EL unless the potential titleholder has already applied for an EL and received consent from the minister to approach the land council. Therefore, an applicant has to have the EL approved by the minister before approaching the land council for consent to operate on that land.
The industry appears to be supportive of much of this bill, so I will point out rather than raise as an issue, the fact there are some quite significant and fundamental changes to the bill from the current act. In this particular clause it relates to the number of blocks, which has been halved from 500 blocks to a maximum of 250. The paradigm behind this change is consistent with my way of thinking and, provided by way of information in the briefing, relates to being able to move more companies through different parcels of land, there is less opportunity for warehousing, and it comes back to the ‘use it or lose it’ philosophy.
Moving on, exploration licences in retention, ELRs, are covered by clauses 33 to 39. The ELR allows a titleholder to designate an area within the EL as an area which contains a commercially viable deposit of minerals or extraction minerals, or an area which requires further feasibility. It is covered for a period of five years and is extended for periods of five years. The minister may cancel the ELR if the titleholder is unreasonably delaying the process that would lead to application of a mineral lease, an ML. That is the same kind of ‘use it or lose it’ thinking.
The minerals leases covered by clauses 40 to 45 allow a titleholder to mine and process the mineral within that title area. Mineral lease applications on Aboriginal land - a person must hold an EL or an ELR before they can apply for an ML on Aboriginal land, which is consistent with the process for exploration licences. There are a couple of exceptions to that particular provision which relate to a person applying who is a traditional owner of that land which is part of Ranger, Noranda or Pancontinental project areas.
The extractive mineral exploration licences, EMLs, are covered by clauses 46 to 49. They grant the titleholder the exclusive rights to explore for and apply for a permit to extract extractive minerals from the title area. The EMPs, extractive mineral permits, allow the titleholder to extract extractive minerals from the natural surface of the land. The area extractive minerals are removed from is to be less than 100 ha. The holder of an EML may mine for extractive minerals within the title area provided the land area does not exceed 100 ha.
Miners’ rights and preliminary exploration of land: miners’ rights under the Mining Act have been replaced in this bill with the concept of preliminary exploration of land. The miners’ right purchased from the department for, I believe, $100 these days, allows a person to conduct preliminary exploration, survey and reconnaissance work by non-intrusive and non-mechanical means to determine the exploration potential on any Territory land not subject to an exploration licence, or subject to an application for such a licence, and with the consent of a warden.
Out of interest, when I was a police officer at Maranboy in the late 1980s, which many in the House would know is an old mining area and had a significant tin mine in the early part of this century, police stations were able to issue miners’ rights. I was issued a miners’ right which, unfortunately, would now be an historical piece of paper on the wall once this bill comes into force.
The requirement for the miners’ right has been removed with the Mineral Titles Bill. A person may conduct preliminary explorations to determine the geological characteristics of the land, remove small samples from the land, or conduct airborne surveys - the latter with the consent of the minister. Only the use of hand-held, non-mechanical means other than GPS or metal detection devices are permitted by a person conducting preliminary exploration. If the land is vacant Crown land, pastoral land or native title land, the person conducting the preliminary exploration must give notice of their intention to conduct preliminary exploration to the occupier of the land. I am not going to touch deeply on issues around pastoral or native title land; I believe other members in the House will have a shot at that later.
There is no set amount of time notice has to be given to the occupier before the exploration, nor is there any requirement for the occupier to consent to the preliminary exploration. If the landowner does not reply to a request for consent within two months, consent is presumed to be granted. That is interesting, and I will repeat it for emphasis: if a person wishes to conduct preliminary exploration on land they need to seek the permission from the landowner; however, if the request for consent is not responded to within two months it is presumed the consent is granted. That means people on pastoral leases and other areas of the Northern Territory who are tardy with their responses to applications ought not be because permission will be presumed to be given if they have not responded within two months.
When preliminary exploration is to be conducted on private land, Aboriginal land, Aboriginal community living areas, or a park or reserve, the consent of the landowner is required. The landowner may impose reasonable conditions on the person conducting the preliminary exploration and cannot, unreasonably, withold consent for the preliminary exploration. If consent is withheld, the person seeking consent can dispute that and take it to the tribunal.
Again, this is all about opening up more parts of the Northern Territory and facilitating a fairly active regime of preliminary exploration across the Northern Territory, which makes perfect sense. The Northern Territory is still a young jurisdiction in mining and exploration, and there are plenty of exploration companies which would be quite pleased to conduct preliminary exploration in parts of the Northern Territory. This is important to the ongoing health of the Northern Territory economy, given mining royalties already account for 26% of our GSP. We need to expand our own source revenue base, and mining is an appropriate way to do that.
The person conducting preliminary exploration must receive written consent from the landowner before undertaking any activity on private or Aboriginal land. However, there is no time frame stated for how long before entry they must receive consent for access. The Queensland Mineral Titles Act requires consent to be given five working days before the intended time of entry. While the amount of private land is greater in Queensland, this would appear to be a commonsense provision to allow the landowner to move any stock, or make other arrangements for the land access requested. That might be something the department and minister may wish to take note of; it could well be included in regulation.
If a written reply is not received from the landowner within two months of giving notice of entry, the landowner is taken to have consented under clause 167. However, there appears to be no general ability for the landowner to revoke consent, which is an interesting provision. It is particularly concerning if the consent was presumed under clause 167 and the lack of reply was due to the owner’s absence or incapacity. I wonder if the minister is able to address that. I daresay I will ask a question about that in the committee stage.
Other parts of this bill have been raised with me by various groups or individuals. I believe the members for Goyder, Fong Lim and Nelson will canvass some of those issues around areas reserved from occupation, native title and fossicking.
I am aware, as a result of submissions made to the government on areas reserved from occupation by an individual in the Silkwood region of Adelaide River, the government will be proffering committee stage amendments to this bill. I have had discussions with the gentlemen who made those submissions to the government. I have had some discussions with the member for Nelson and received a briefing on those committee stage amendments this morning. Although they probably do not go all the way towards satisfying the submissions made, they go part way, and seem to be a sensible resolution to those issues.
I commend the gentlemen who made those submissions, Mr Michael Fonda. He is a terrific example of a passionate person in the Northern Territory who can and does move government. He proposed new clauses 112, 113 and 117 of the bill, backed with reasoned argument. It seems the minister has taken some of those suggestions on board, and is relatively satisfied with those submissions. Good on you, minister, for taking the time to consult with that gentleman and taking those issues on board.
I move to fossicking, although I know it will be covered further by other members in this debate. There are significant changes to the provisions of the new bill regulating fossicking. Under the Mining Act, a person is required to obtain a fossicker’s permit in order to fossick for minerals in a declared area within 1 m of the surface using non-mechanical means of detection and extraction. The fossicking must be for non-commercial means, occasional selling of minerals, but not as a profitmaking venture where the person’s whole or substantial income is derived from the trade of minerals extracted.
Certain minerals such as diamonds, fossils of invertebrate animals, or meteorite fragments cannot be fossicked for. The depth, means of fossicking, and non-commercial aspect remain unchanged by the Mineral Titles Bill, as does the restriction on fossicking diamonds, fossils of invertebrate animals, and meteorite fragments. The main change imposed by this bill is the fossicker’s permit is no longer required and a person can, with some restrictions, fossick on any land in the Territory.
The fossicker may fossick without restriction on vacant Crown land, a declared fossicking area, a proposed title area of an EL or EMEL, or the title area of an EMEL. The fossicker must first give notice to the occupier of a pastoral lease, and regulations may specify situations where a fossicker must obtain consent of the occupier; that was an issue canvassed in the briefing this morning with the department. If the landowner does not reply to a request for consent within two months, consent is presumed to be granted. I encourage people on pastoral leases to be vigilant for correspondence requesting applications to fossick.
An area of land subject to an EL other than gold - people may fossick on that land without giving notice of their intention or obtaining consent. There are no instructions to indicate whether consent is required from a landowner if a fossicker wishes to fossick on private land that is subject to an EL. Consent must be sought from the landowner in order to fossick on private land, but unlike the provisions for preliminary exploration, there is no need for the fossicker to comply with all reasonable requests of the landowner, only conditions imposed by the minister.
That is a salient point. This could possibly limit the ability of the two parties to negotiate limitations on the area to be accessed by a fossicker, such as not into particular cropping areas or stock paddocks, irrigation grounds, near sheds, or require the fossicker to backfill any holes created by fossicking. These will be conditions imposed by the minister rather than the landowner. Maybe this is something which needs to be enshrined in regulation: the degree of consultation that must be undertaken before the minister imposes those conditions. The landowner should have much to say in what they are.
There is scope for similar conditions to be provided by regulation, however, the rights of the landowner should be protected in legislation and they should be able to negotiate conditions of entry and activity of a fossicker on their private land. There also appears to be no ability for the landowner to revoke the consent, which is particularly concerning if consent was presumed under clause 167, but the lack of reply was due to the owner’s absence or incapacity.
Access under the Mining Act is essentially similar to the provisions of the Mineral Titles Bill. The main difference is the minister has a greater say over what is allowed than under the Mining Act. In the bill, the holder of a mineral title has right of access to land other than the land subject to the mineral title in order to access the land subject to the mineral title. They also have the right to construct a road over land, including private land, to access a council or Territory road, airstrip, railway line or waterway by the shortest practicable route. The committee stage amendments also refer to that, clarifying the position of the legislation.
The titleholder must apply to the minister if they require access to land outside the area subject to the mineral title; that makes sense. While they must inform any landowner of their intention to access the land, the minister does not need to take into consideration any objections by the landowner.
The Mineral Titles Bill has simplified the provisions for compensation to apply to all mineral titleholders rather than compensation provisions specific to each licence, grant or permit in the Mining Act. This seems to simplify the process. The old process was somewhat convoluted, and having provisions which apply specifically to each different title can create some confusion. That seems to be a sensible move. The ability for landholders to be compensated is essentially the same in the bill as in the Mining Act. Landholders have a general entitlement for compensation from the holder of a mineral title for damage to land or improvements on the land, or for damages caused by loss of use of that land or improvements. There is no specific provision for claiming compensation for personal injury. The claim for compensation must be made within three years from the activity which caused the damage, however a longer time may be allowed by the tribunal.
I am going to close there. Much of this bill cannot be covered in depth in this debate because of the length of the bill. The bill is largely accepted by industry and there are but a few people with issues which need to be raised with the government. I feel comfortable we have reached that point, although I believe some members will have other things to say.
The bill will be supported by the opposition today. I reiterate there is an expectation from industry this new bill be brought into force as quickly as possible. I urge the minister and the department to not delay the regulations for an inordinate amount of time as we have seen with other legislation.
Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks there.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say well done to the member for Katherine for the research and effort he has put into this bill. He does himself justice, and does us all proud on this side of the House with the way he has attacked and analysed this. He compared this government’s haste in delivering this bill to tectonic plate movements. Eight years in the making is an indictment on this government, but typical of this government. They promise things which never eventuate. There are so many examples of that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: They make promises and commitments; however, I am happy we are here eight years later debating this bill. Hear, hear for your quick and speedy actions, minister. Eight years is pretty quick movement by your government - well done.
I acknowledge a good friend of mine who is sitting in the gallery, Graham McMahon. He has brought his beautiful wife with him today to witness this debate. Graham is the chairman of the Amateur Prospectors’ Association in the Northern Territory and is a constituent of Fong Lim. As such, I have dealt with him because his association is very interested in this bill. Graham refers to himself as a metal detecting tourist. He sees this as a big issue in relation to tourism, and somehow we have to connect this up with mining.
To digress a little, several years ago I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, and we held an inquiry into the impediments to mineral exploration in Australia. Several interesting things came out of that inquiry. We eventually put out a report titled Between a Rock and a Hard Place which was reasonably well accepted by explorers and the mining industry across Australia. It had bipartisan support in the federal parliament; that is, all parties which were involved in that inquiry agreed with the outcomes and what was contained in that report.
We found several interesting things. What most struck me is the fact that many of the great mines we have in this country, many of the big resource developments, can be traced back to the scratcher, the prospector, the metal detector, the fossicker, the lapidarist, the gem hunters - prospectors, scratchers. There is a list of them. Mark Creasy, a very famous man who refers to himself as a scratcher, a prospector, is responsible for discovering the Bronzewing Mine in Western Australia. Several years ago he was named in the BRW rich list. He travels around looking for minerals and metals, prospecting. There are many others.
Kim Robinson, a geologist and a scratcher, started out hunting for gems in Western Australia. He founded a now listed company called Kagara Zinc which is worth several hundred million dollars. As I said, he started out hunting for gemstones in Western Australia and, whilst he found gemstones, as he said: ‘There was too much dirt in between them; they were too far and few between’. He turned his attention to gold and discovered the rich Bounty gold deposit in 1996. Bounty made his original fortune, and he went on to produce more than a million ounces of gold over the life of that mine. He did not stop there. He took Kagara, his company, into zinc and copper in Queensland. These days he still fossicks quite often, not just taking his metal detector and other equipment; he travels with his fishing rod and golf clubs as well.
The point is many of the great mines in this country have been founded by people like Kim Robinson and Mark Creasy. They are somewhat the exception to the rule, inasmuch as they are very wealthy now as a result of their prospecting activities, whereas the vast majority of people involved in metal detecting, prospecting, fossicking, are doing it as a hobby, as a bit of fun. However, you cannot undermine their impact on the mining industry because the reality is they play a vital role in mining.
Members will be aware I tabled two petitions last week. Again, I mention Graham MacMahon, and his organisation, who circulated those petitions for people to look at. The first one had 562 signatures and the second 3070 signatures. Most members would agree they are rather large petitions for this House. The interesting thing about those petitions is when looking through the list of names and addresses of people who signed them, understandably, a large majority were Territorians. In the first petitions of 562 signatures, 230 were people from the Northern Territory. In the second petition of 3070 signatures, 1419 were Territorians. The bulk of signatures came from people around Australia and overseas; from every state and territory in Australia, to places all over the globe. In the first petition there were 15 signatures from people in the UK, someone from Casablanca, a couple from Holland, a South African, and people from New Zealand, America, Ireland, the Cocos Islands and Germany. In the second petition there was a signature from someone from Kuala Lumpur, a couple from Spain, seven from Singapore, and people from Holland, Scotland, Canada, Estonia, France, South Africa, Ireland, Saint-Malo, the United Kingdom, America, Germany, Denmark and Malaysia. This shows there is quite a deal of interest from people who wish to go fossicking, prospecting and metal detecting.
That is a good story because it shows people are interested in seeing the great outdoors of the Northern Territory, people who want to look around and, with any luck, they will find something. They will come across something; it may be an old horseshoe or a nail, some funny shaped rocks, or they might come across the next great gold mine; that is the reality of it.
Obviously, these people do not just turn up with a metal detector. Mr Robinson travels with his fishing rod and golf clubs. He is going to golf parks, he is fishing, and he has to stay somewhere; he is utilising motels and all the services townships and communities can offer. These people are contributors to the Northern Territory, so I am interested to hear what the Minister for Tourism has to say about this bill and the way government intends to treat fossickers.
Unfortunately, I was not aware of the departmental briefing, so I am not aware of the last minute amendments the minister has put up. I am very keen, when this goes to committee stage, to ask a few questions in relation to that.
Getting back to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, we spoke to an organisation which ranked countries around the world for their exploration potential. Not surprisingly, on their rankings Australia came top of the list for companies wanting to explore for resources in Australia. However, when broken down into a range of different categories, Australia ranked high in some categories and low in others. We were nearly worst in the world in relation to land access and what we termed ‘green take’, that is, all the environmental considerations. Many will say that is not a bad thing; we want to set the bar very high in relation to exploration, the environment and land access. Where Australia topped the list was areas such as government support; things like Geoscience Australia, which does a huge amount of mapping work and is publicly available virtually for anyone. Much of the guess work is taken away by the service Geoscience Australia offers.
The issue of land access in Northern Territory has been a bugbear for years. People in a range of areas, not only prospectors, find Aboriginal land is off-limits to the vast majority, national parks are off-limits and pastoral leases, to a large extent, have also been off-limits. There are few places people have been able to access land to undertake scratching, prospecting, fossicking and metal detecting.
I heard what the member for Katherine said about the regulations; I hope he is not right. I hope we do not wait two years for the regulations. I imagine much of what prospectors are interested in will be contained in the regulations.
I urge the minister to ensure those regulations are drafted and put in place. The notion of ‘use it or lose it’ is of concern. I know this has occupied the mind of governments, not only in the Northern Territory but across Australia, even the federal parliament. How do you almost force mining companies to use the leases they have? The knee-jerk way Labor governments have proposed is the concept of ‘you use it or you lose it’.
There is a contradictory argument to that in relation to sovereign risk. If you tell international mining and exploration companies if they spend millions and millions of dollars on exploration, bearing in mind this is high risk - there is very little return in exploration for explorations sake; it is only if you are lucky and the times suit, bearing in mind commodity prices, access to transport and a whole range of issues – it is only then a mine becomes viable. Quite often markets dictate a mine is not viable, but a mining company may take a commercial decision to retain a lease in the hope commodity prices change. If a government says you need to develop a mine in such and such a time frame, the chances are those global exploration companies will look at Australia, and the Northern Territory, and say: ‘They have just added another element of risk called sovereign risk, where the government will seize our lease and take our work’. That is the conundrum governments find themselves in. I am interested to question the minister on assurances he will give to mineral companies to ensure they do not leave the Northern Territory.
I do not want to say too much on this. I am glad the government has acted in such hasty fashion to put this before us; it has only taken eight years which is almost record time for this government - well done. Hopefully, their haste will also be reflected in the drafting of the regulations and we will not be waiting for two years, as suggested by the member for Katherine.
I acknowledge the contribution prospectors have made to mining. I have only mentioned two prospectors; however, there are hundreds of these guys around the country who were the origins of some of our great mines in Australia. For that reason, I support them and their efforts to prospect more of the Territory and, hopefully, tell us more about the resources we have in the Northern Territory.
I also acknowledge the contribution these guys make to the Northern Territory tourism industry. They are not appearing and disappearing; they are using all our services offered in the Northern Territory, from caravan parks to restaurants, to golf courses to fishing holes. They make a great contribution to the community, and I would like to see this government take that into account.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am surprised the member for Fong Lim did not take the opportunity to talk on the super profits tax; at this stage in history how could he forget …
Mr Tollner: How could I forget!
Mr WOOD: I digress. Before I speak more on this bill, we should look at mining from a more philosophical approach in relation to the Territory.
Mining has been very much part of the Territory since the Chinese and Europeans first came to these shores. The area I came to in the 1970s was Daly River, and the first thing I learned about was the famous copper mine where Noltenius and crew dug a hole in the rock. When you see what they did by hand, you have to wonder at the effort they made to grind out a living in a harsh environment, and a long way from anywhere. Look at Fletcher’s Gully and some of the small gold mines in that area; you see shafts going straight into the ground. Standing there in October/November you think: these must have been tough people. Southport was a major port in Darwin Harbour for a long time because it picked up the gold from Pine Creek - Mira Road was the donkey trail from Pine Creek to Southport.
There is a huge amount of history in relation to mining we should not forget. People like Joe Fisher, who passed away a couple of years ago; his contribution to opening up the Northern Territory for mining should not be forgotten. People in this House will have knowledge of those who contributed to mining.
Mining in Central Australia was also important, and continues to be important. We must not forget mining is the number one industry in the Northern Territory by a long way. Therefore, the bill which has been put forward today is extremely important because it is the basis on which that industry is to continue in the Northern Territory.
Member for Goyder, I always say that nearly all the buildings you see in Darwin today are built because of extractive mining in the rural area. Nearly all the sand supplied for concrete comes from Howard Springs – a colossal amount – yet, sometimes we forget the importance of that area. I was suggesting to the member for Goyder earlier that when the strategic plan reaches daylight one of the things we must not forget is the importance of the extractive mining industry in the Darwin region. In other words, we have to be careful not to lock up some of the land required to build and develop the Darwin region. It is important we do not forget extractive gravel, sand, rock and blue metal are all very much the foundation of development, especially in the Darwin region.
The member for Katherine has done a great job going through this bill. It is not easy for lay people to find our way through this maze of technical terms; getting our head around what was before and what is now. I thank the government for the briefings we have had. After the first briefing, we needed another. We also had a briefing with Michael Fong in my office. I appreciate the effort he made to put forward some good points. He has made it a more open and transparent process, especially in relation to reserve land, and that is very good.
My old friend, Geoff Casey - people would know him from a long time ago; he has been around for donkey’s ages - has a strong opinion on several issues, and I will raise those and bring forward the department’s response. I know the minister can do it as well. The department’s response has been good; it has given me a better understanding of the system.
I see there have been some amendments. Even though I had an idea of the amendments, these are different, in parts, to the amendments I had. In a short time, I have been trying to digest what is in here. I am hopeful we will take the committee stage reasonably slowly so we can have a better explanation. I notice - and I am sure the fossicking people will be happy to know - there have been changes. One of the changes applies also to Geoff Casey’s argument about miners’ rights. Under clause 20 in the bill which deals with preliminary exploration or fossicking, you do not need permission to go onto a pastoral property. Clause 20 says, in relation to a person who has an authorised preliminary exploration right:
You have the right to go onto that land as long as you notify them.
You must take into account clause 24, which gives some general obligations of what you must do in relation to preliminary exploration. Clause 24(1) says:
We have to balance this with the rights of the pastoral industry and native title owners. I believe that is fair enough. The complaint you will receive from the pastoral industry is: ‘People come onto our property, we do not know them; they leave gates open’. Animals move out, which upsets them as well. We need to not only encourage the fossicking people to get out there; we also need to recognise issues from the pastoral industry. There is a set of general obligations under this act which everyone in the industry needs to read and be aware of.
The other change, due to the lobbying of the fossicking people, is tourist fossicking will be allowed. My understanding - and the minister will tell me if I am wrong – is that will come under a mineral lease. Under the mineral lease you will need to comply with a series of conditions. They are some very important and exciting changes. As the member for Fong Lim said, the fossicking industry is important. It not only allows people to go fossicking when they come to the Territory, they do other things as well. Perhaps with the increase in the number of grey nomads travelling around Australia, there may be more and more fossicking. However, all these things have to be balanced. Fossicking is fine, however the rights of the pastoral industry to ensure their industry is protected is the balancing act. That needs to be kept in mind through this.
Geoff Casey was concerned about the abolition of the miners’ rights, and if a person had a miners’ right - I was interested in what the member for Katherine was saying about miners’ rights and how the police would sign them up. I was wondering if he signed his own, which might be a conflict of interest. I thought he would at least ask a mate to do it; however, that was in the 1980s, and you know how we got car licences in those days too …
Mr Westra van Holthe: They were the good old days.
Mr WOOD: They were the good old days; things have changed today. As the bill says, you can get a preliminary exploration provision, which has similar rights, without the specific need to seek warden’s approval. The new section talks about access to pastoral leases and, as I said, you are required to notify the landowner; you still have access to pastoral leases.
There is also discussion about the abolition of a mineral claim. The department’s response is mineral claims have become part of mineral leases, and it will not be necessary to peg before lodging an application. There are changes which I believe will satisfy people like Geoff, who has a miners’ right. People who still have concerns should ask the minister for a briefing from the experts. They know the ins and outs of mining leases, extractive mining leases, extractive exploration leases, retention leases; they know them better than I do. My understanding, from answers the department has given, is they all make sense and do not appear to restrict people who have mining rights from doing what they did then; they will be able to do the same things now.
There was some concern about the abolition of the Mining Warden’s Court. I am interested, minister, if there will be any major changes from what the Warden’s Court did to what the Lands Planning and Mining Tribunal will do. Are there any great changes between the two and, if so, could you highlight those changes?
Geoff is also concerned about the minister making decisions regarding applications. The department has mentioned clause 165, which talks about the minister giving written notice of decisions and requirements. There are three parts to that. It is obvious the minister must tell people the reason for the decisions, so it is in the bill. There will be people who are concerned about change, minister. If people are still concerned about their rights being diminished I ask if the department could be available to take questions from those people; that would be a positive approach.
When I first came to the Territory I worked at Daly River for some time; I was looking for a block of land. Blocks of land were hard to come by in a pastoral area, however, little squares popped up. I have forgotten how many acres they were. They were always called garden leases. I do not know whether they had a formal title, but I have heard those garden leases will be resumed, changed, or whatever. I am interested to know what they are officially called. My understanding is they were garden leases because they were to allow miners to grow a few vegies. From an historical point of view they have been around for many years; I am interested to know the future intention of those little blocks of land.
The other important issue for me is reserves. This matter was brought up by Michael Fonda; he has a practice in Adelaide River and is passionate about some changes. He owns land in Silkwood. I have told him I do not support subdivision of that country. I believe much of Silkwood country should have been preserved; then I might not have to worry about this. We would have put it under special reserved land, which might have been the fixer. However, it has been subdivided and he has land he would like protected from mining.
I believe the changes the government have brought forward are good. The changes allow notice to be given in the newspaper relating to the locality of the reserved land, the description of the land, and the reasons. For instance, if the minister wanted to revoke the land, a whole series of things opens the process for the public to have a say, which is really important.
The concern I have - I received a preliminary draft of amendments for this area because we were negotiating it with Michael Fonda - is the amendments today in relation to general reserved land appear to have been shortened, especially after clause 113. They seem to be in the regulations rather than defining them in the act. I will be interested to find out why that has changed.
Even with the pastoral industry it is important that there is a balance between the rights of miners and the rights of landowners. I know the government owns all the minerals, but that is not much chop if you are living on that land. You can sound very technical and legal, however the reality is people have their homes on parcels of land and sometimes they have a close affinity with that land. When someone says: ‘I am going to dig it up’, they might find it is not quite what they would like. At least this allows land to be reserved from mining, and it allows a process for that to be done another way. The balance is, if someone wants a parcel of land reserved for mining, the mining industry should have the right to say: ‘We do not think that should happen. We think there are some important minerals in that land, and we do not think they should be locked away’. You have to have the balance and this, from what I have seen, appears to give the balance; although I need to absorb the slight changes to clause 113, which I do not quite have my head around.
The other area not mentioned much is the mineral authority. That took some trying to understand. I had only moved through the ELs, the ELRs, the MLs and the EMLs …
Ms Purick: MCs.
Mr WOOD: Yes, whatever. I came across the mineral authority and thought: what the heck is that? I think I understand it, minister; it gives someone permission to go onto reserved land and do not much more than fossicking. If they feel there is an opportunity for mining, they can apply to the minister for an exploration licence over part or all of that reserve. It was one of those things; some of these words like ‘mineral authority’ do not always describe exactly what they mean. I understand the gist of it now and it makes sense; even though land is reserved it does not stop people looking. I believe that is good.
We had contact with the Minerals Council. They have been discussing this for about four years; it is time. You can go around in circles forever; however it is legislation which needs to be brought before parliament. The in word is we need ‘contemporary legislation’. It is saying we need to bring legislation up to date with any changes in a new century in relation to mining. It is important we bring in good legislation which is balanced and fair to all people involved and, at the same time, is legislation which will drive the most important industry in the Northern Territory.
Although we might jump up and down about mining at times, if we did not have mining in the Northern Territory we would certainly be more reliant on the GST and government. I have said this about the department of Primary Industries, the department of Resources, we have to push for a much broader economy. We have to become less reliant on handouts from the Commonwealth and stand on our own two feet. If we ever want a claim to statehood I believe we have to be far less reliant on the Commonwealth; be basically independent of them in the sense we can raise our own revenue. One of the main areas of raising revenue has to be the mining industry.
This bill before us today, which will turn into an act when the regulations are sorted out - wherever you go through this bill you will see the word ‘regulation’. I hope there can be more discussion about those regulations. Generally speaking, in parliament they say ‘subject to regulations’ and it goes off to a committee and that is the last you see of it. Very rarely do you see regulations debated in parliament, and it may be there is an opportunity for those regulations to come back because they will be the backbone of this bill; this bill will be the backbone of the industry.
Agreeing with this bill and not having any idea of the regulations is like giving 50% approval and the rest I do on faith. This might be an opportunity, because it is such an important bill, to allow the regulations to come back to parliament for a broader debate rather than in a committee. We can discuss it with the industry, and it can come back for debate by more people than just the committee. If that is possible, I believe it is the way we should go.
Madam Speaker, I will be speaking more when we get to the committee stage because there are quite a few amendments. Overall, I am happy there have been changes. The bill is now before us and I support the bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, yes, it has been a long time coming; it has been eight years - a little slow. With the exception of the minister and advisors, the member for Nelson and I are probably the few who really know the history of the legislation, and it is time for an overhaul. It has been in for a long time, and whilst there was nothing dramatically wrong with the legislation, there had been many changes; it was time to review the whole bill.
We support the Minerals Title Bill and the policies behind the change. However, from my discussions with industry people, both big and small, particularly the smaller explorers who this mostly impacts, the extractive people, the tenement management people, and some legal people who are a very important part of the industry, there are still a number of issues I would like to query - also from my notes from my previous work within the minerals industry. They mostly pertain to native title and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, which is the Commonwealth legislation, as is the native title. I will go through them, and some of them may have to go into committee stages.
I start by referencing areas of concern, some of which may require clarification from the minister, and that is fine.
Clause 203(3)(a) of the bill envisages a mineral claim under the Mining Act must be converted to either a mineral exploration licence or a mineral lease. I see some of these following material issues: the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act - and will call it the Land Rights Act from now on – (1) does not appear to contemplate or allow the creation of a mineral exploration licence on Aboriginal land without the procedures in sections 41 and 42 of the Land Rights Act having been complied with (with traditional owners having the right of veto); and (2), pursuant to section 46 does not contemplate a mineral lease being granted on Aboriginal land unless the miner is an intending miner and holds either a mineral exploration licence, or a mineral exploration licence in retention. They are very important issues and need to be addressed.
The next one is in relation to the Native Title Act 1993 - which I will call the Native Title Act - any requirement to undertake the right to negotiate is likely to result in miners entering into agreements which provide for compensation in terms over and above those that exist as a result of any existing mineral claims granted prior to the Native Title Act. Therefore, if a mineral claim was converted to a mineral exploration licence, or mineral exploration licence in retention, any subsequent application by the miner for a mineral lease, in effect restoring their original position, would likely trigger the right to negotiate on any pastoral lease land, or other land where native title may exist because (a) it is most unlikely the grant of the mineral claim fully extinguished all native title rights and interests; and (b) it is difficult to see how the grant of a future mineral lease under this new mineral titles legislation will not be wholly or partly inconsistent with the continued existence, enjoyment and exercise of the remaining native title rights and interests.
The next point is great care would have to be taken to ensure the conversion from a mineral claim to a mineral lease did not affect native title rights and interests, given the different expressions of the rights flowing from each title, triggering the right to negotiate. That is one of the main areas of concern; in recommending these changes there is not detrimental impact upon companies, particularly when you have one company which has some 125 mineral claims. It is the biggest holder of mineral claims in the Territory, and the minister and advisors know which company this is. We do not want that company, which is a major player in the Tennant Creek region, to have any detrimental impact in the conversion of their MCs to ELs or mineral leases, for example.
I ask the minister, in light of my statement, to considers a new ‘Principle for Transition’ be inserted in clause 193(2) of this new legislation, to the effect there is to be no disadvantage to existing mineral interests or holders in rights or obligations as a result of either the Land Rights Act or the Native Title Act. Second, the minister’s decision under clause 203(3) of this new minerals title legislation should be discretionary rather than mandatory so if issues such as those identified present a real impediment to any conversion, mineral claims may be retained in accordance with clause 203(2) of this new minerals title legislation.
The new transfer in dealings provisions in Division 1, or Part 7 of this Mineral Titles Bill, give rise to the following issues which I have discussed with industry. Point A: it appears legal or equitable interest may be created under clause 122(1), without registration, however, any subsequent transfer of such interest requires registration under clause 123(1), which does not appear to be a consistent policy treatment.
Point B: in my view, and the view put to me - and we have discussed it with industry - the definition of ‘general dealing’ in clause 125(1) would include all instruments of dealings under clause 122(1), but would extend also to other interests or relationships, such as many royalty agreements, farming agreements, and joint venture agreements. In order for such other interests to be registered my view, and the view of industry people I have been dealing with, is clause 125 would benefit from the inclusion of equivalent provisions to clauses 122(2) and 122(3) of the new mineral titles legislation.
The next point is in regard to clause 20(a), 21(2)(b), 66 and 72 of the new Mineral Titles legislation which provides landowners have certain rights of notification and objection. Clause 14(d) of this legislation defines landowner to include the holders of native title where there is an approved determination of native title. The following complicating factors may arise, and I bring them to the minister’s attention. Under the native title legislation, there may be native title holders who are not recognised in the native title determination. Native title determinations are likely to specify estate groups, such identified current individual native title holders who will be landowners, and it may be difficult without research into the genealogies of a particular estate group.
Third, native title determinations relating to several estate groups in relation to an area may not specify which estate group is the native title holder for particular parts of the area.
Clauses 21(2)(b) and 66 appear to require further provisions or supporting regulations to address the above issues. As previous speakers have indicated, the regulations to this legislation are going to be very critical in supporting the legislation to enable it to work efficiently and effectively.
I turn my attention to clause 4(2) of the Mineral Titles Bill, which does not reflect the purpose of the Mining Management Act. The long title of the Mining Management Act is: ‘… to provide for the authorisation of mining activities, the management of mining sites, the protection of the environment on mining sites, and for related purposes’. The current wording in clause 4(2) of this Mineral Titles Bill describes the Mining Management Act as legislation ‘… to ensure the protection of the environment’. That is it. It appears more appropriate the word ‘and’ be substituted for the word ‘to’.
The example provided at clause 11(2)(d) of the Mineral Titles Bill, I believe, is misleading. A compulsory acquisition of land underlying the mineral title would not cause a cessation of the mineral title. I ask the minister to review that and give some explanation as to why he believes it to be the case; we do not believe it would.
The right of occupation granted for a mineral exploration licence pursuant to clause 26(1)(a) of the Mineral Titles Bill appears to make it more likely a transfer of a mineral exploration licence to a foreign person will trigger notification requirements under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, which is a Commonwealth act. There does not appear to be any good policy reason for that legislation involvement at this early stage of the exploration and mining process, especially given the Territory minister’s discretion to refuse a transfer.
The exclusive right to apply for a mineral lease in clause 26(1)(c) of this legislation is not consistent with the right under section 25(b)(ii) of the Mining Act - the holder of a mineral lease to obtain an ancillary mineral lease over an exploration licence held by another miner where it is necessary to support a mining operation. It is my view clause 26 of the Mineral Titles Bill should be amended to preserve this feature of the Mining Act.
I seek confirmation from the minister regarding the operation of clause 29 of the Mineral Titles Bill. I believe the reduction of a title area of a mineral exploration licence every two years will only occur during the initial grant of a licence for six years and not during any further renewals, and I seek clarification on that point.
I also query whether there is any underlying purpose for the language used in clause 34 of the Mineral Titles Bill, which initially appears to make the issue of a mineral exploration licence in retention an administrative designation rather than the application for, and grant of, a new title. In particular, I ask whether the phrase, ‘… may decide to designate’, seeks to reduce the potential for the right to negotiate process under the Native Title Act to apply.
Clause 38(1)(b) of the Mineral Titles Bill forces the holder of a mineral exploration licence in retention to apply for the grant of a mineral lease if the mining and processing of mineral becomes commercially viable. There is no clarity on what constitutes a commercially viable operation, and I can see valid scenarios where it is not reasonable for a miner to seek to convert an exploration licence in retention to a mineral lease at a particular point in time.
I recommend a revised approach whereby the minister has the power to serve notice on the miner requiring conversion, unless the miner can satisfy the minister that conversion is not appropriate; otherwise there is a risk of creating situations where, though for good reasons, the act is wilfully not complied with by the miner and the Territory, in effect, acquiesces to such non-compliance. It needs some clarification, minister.
The Mineral Titles Bill does not appear to contain the Mining Act provision for compensation to an exploration retention licence holder if their application for a mineral lease is refused. In circumstances where the Mineral Titles Bill ratchets up the requirement to obtain and hold an ELR and, in certain cases to make an application for a mineral lease compulsory, it appears inequitable not to have a similar provision in this Mineral Titles Bill.
In regard to the requirements of clause 33(2) of the Mineral Titles Bill, for a mineral exploration licence in retention, and note there is no provision for the grant of an ancillary mineral exploration licence in retention similar to sections 41(a) of the Mining Act, it is difficult to secure necessary areas for ancillary mining infrastructure; for example, waste dumps, processing plants and tailings dams.
I recommend the Mineral Titles Bill be amended to allow for either an ELR of sufficient area to cover both the ore body, or an anomalous zone and any related areas required for mining, or an ELR for ancillary purposes where there has been granted an ELR under clause 33(2)(a) of this minerals title legislation.
Clause 65(3) of the Mineral Titles Bill prevents the grant of any mineral title, excluding an extractive mineral permit and extractive mineral lease, over an existing mineral title, except as provided by regulation. I seek confirmation that extractive mineral permits and extractive mineral leases are able to be granted over mineral exploration licences; it is not quite clear to me.
Clause 76(4)(a) of the bill provides the regulation shall determine the maximum size of an ML and an EML. I query whether regulations will provide for 4000 ha and 100 ha respectively. I would like that clarified.
In clause 78(5)(a) of the bill it appears the term ‘new title’, should read ‘new mineral title’. A small item, however, I believe it is important. The language used in clause 78(5)(a) of the bill is not consistent with the rest of the bill, and I query whether the defined term ‘authorised activities’ is perhaps more appropriate.
The test in clause 78(5)(b) of the bill appears to have the unintended consequence of preventing the grant of an EMEL within an EL, which may significantly diminish the applicability and usefulness of an EMEL. Many acronyms, however I know the minister and his advisors know what they are.
It is important to clarify and bolster the right, under clause 83 of the bill, by stating the titleholder shall have access to, and from, the title area.
Clause 88(a) of the bill is potentially inconsistent with clause 107 of the bill, and the power given to the titleholders under clause 81 of the bill to enter and occupy the land. Clause 88(a), as currently drafted, may cause difficulties with landowners who are determined to hinder or prevent exploration or mining - and there are some out there - notwithstanding the rights of the miner. I suggest the words ‘as little damage as reasonably practicable’ be substituted for the word ‘damage’.
Pursuant to clause 104 of the bill, there appears to be no equivalent provision to section 30(5) of the Mining Act to refund the unexpired portion of the rent for the licence which has been surrendered upon request of the minister. I query whether this is an intentional change or a slip-up in the drafting.
In clause 130(1) of the bill, the phrase ‘… legal or equitable interest in a mineral title, or in an application relating to a mineral title …’ is used. Clause 121(e) of the bill defines legal and equitable interest held by persons in mineral titles or applications relating to mineral titles as ‘mineral rights interests’. Therefore, it appears clause 130 of the bill refers to mineral rights interests. If this is the case, I suggest the term ‘mineral rights interest’ be used in clause 130(1).
If it is intended there be a difference, I would appreciate advice from the minister as to what other interests are envisaged.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you have more to …
Ms PURICK: Yes, I have two or three pages. Do you want to break?
Madam SPEAKER: If you do not mind we will break because there is a committee meeting; after Question Time then.
Debate suspended.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly discharge General Business Orders of the Day No 6 relating to a motion to establish a Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee Terms of Reference.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue. I have a few more items I wish to raise with the minister. The phrase and I quote: ‘purporting to deal with the mineral title application to which the caveat relates in section …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Katherine, member for Arafura! Member for Goyder, you have the call.
Ms PURICK: The phrase: ‘… purporting to deal with the mineral title or application to which the caveat relates …’ in clause 133(1) of this bill is uncertain. It is unclear whether ‘an instrument of dealing’, clause 122(1) of the bill, or a ‘general dealing’, clause 125(1) of the bill, are within the scope of clause 133(1) of the bill. I recommend any general dealing, which I view as including all instruments of dealing, transfers or devolutions, should cause the caveator to be notified, and clause 133 of the bill be amended to clearly reflect this position.
I query whether the caveat provisions would be improved by allowing for a caveat which specifically excludes certain dealings from the notification requirement. This would allow a caveat to specify dealings to be granted and registered by the minister without having to comply with clause 131(1) of the bill. I query also whether …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should say: ‘We query whether clause 195’, because she is not reading from her speech; she is reading from a letter provided to her by a legal firm in Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order.
Ms PURICK: I find it …
Mr Vatskalis: Call it plagiarism.
Ms PURICK: … completely bizarre the minister is querying discussions I have had with industry. This is about industry and trying to get the best deal, minister.
Mr Vatskalis: It is word for word, the whole speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have an opportunity in replying.
Ms PURICK: If you do not understand what is being discussed, minister, I suggest you get your advisors back so they can explain it to you. You are obviously going to need it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, please direct your comments through the Chair. Minister, cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: Clause 195 of the bill should be amended to include a saving position for an authorisation made under section 181 of the Mining Act, similar to the saving provision for the authorisation under section 182(2) of the Mining Act.
Clause 203(1)(b) of the bill states a title granted under section 191(19) and (20) of the Mining Act is a ‘non-compliant existing interest’ and continues in force until dealt with. It is noted however, under the original terms many such interests were dependent upon the continuing existence of a miners’ right. With the abolition of the miners’ right, I query whether the bill provisions are sufficient to preserve the interest.
The other issue I query the minister on, and would like assurances for, is regarding authorised officers under the bill. My main concern is - and there are a few - the person or persons who are appointed as authorised officers appear to have all-encompassing wide-sweeping powers greater than a police officer: clauses 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178. Clause 178(2) for example, search and cease powers:
…
My very big concern is the minister, and this act, are giving extraordinarily wide-sweeping powers to an individual to search, to seize, to interrogate people, to interview people and, yet, that person or persons do not have a right of reply at law. They have exceptionally wide-ranging powers, greater than that of a police officer; that concerns me a great deal. I seek assurances from the minister that there will be protection to individuals who are inspected, detained, or searched. I would like a definition. What does ‘search a person’ mean? What kind of search are we talking about? Are we doing a frisk search, are they having to empty out their pockets, or do they have to undergo some other search in regard to their detention?
They make a record about an exercise of power under this subsection; inspect and retrieve a thing or information, operate electronic equipment found as a result of the search in order to retrieve or record information. It may be here, however, I cannot see where things which are seized, the detention of a person, the searching of a person’s personal being - where is their protection? Where are their rights?
I would like a greater explanation of ‘authorised officer’ because when comparing this bill to the Mining Act, their powers have been vastly expanded and increased, which causes me a great deal of concern.
I would like the minister to confirm and clarify the position regarding the government’s needs to extract materials for road construction - and it generally is extracted materials to build roads or to embark on infrastructure projects. As the minerals are vested in the Crown, the Crown does not need to have an extractive licence. However, the big issue is government does not rehabilitate the borrow pits they have dug up over the last few years. That concerns me greatly. I would like some assurance from the minister that government will rehabilitate those borrow pits as they continue to build our roads and drains, in exactly the same way they expect industry to rehabilitate their extractive mineral areas.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say at this time. I am generally supportive of the bill, however there are many questions. The minister seems to be a little confused. I look forward to his answers regarding what I, and industry, have raised. Yes, it has been a long time coming. The test is not so much in this legislation; it will be in the regulation. The history of this government is it has taken eight years for this bill to get to the House. I hope it is not another eight years before the regulations are in force. Yes, the regulations are important. I urge the minister to have the regulations in draft form as quickly as possible to consult with industry, the community, and local government; it is important for everyone to have input.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and the introduction of the Mineral Titles Bill. Members’ contributions to the debate were interesting, particularly the member for Nelson who talked about the protocols of entering pastoral lands. It brought back a memory I would like to share with the House, which was the wonderful sign on the horse paddock gate at Woollogorang Station on the border of Northern Territory and Queensland. It said: ‘God may forgive, but the head stockman won’t, so shut the (expletive) gate’. I believe that goes a long way in explaining to Territorians the serious protocols needed when accessing pastoral land throughout the Territory. I suggest you definitely need to make contact with station ownership or management before traversing station land.
The Northern Territory economy is dominated by the mining sector, which accounts for nearly 25% of the economy. It is important our legislation is up-to-date and recognises the significant changes to information technology, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and native title, market globalisation and technologies.
The Mineral Titles Bill will replace the existing Mining Act, which has been in place for nearly 30 years. The Mineral Titles Bill will more accurately reflect the purpose of the legislation to deal with mineral title matters. The act will also provide a clear distinction from other acts, such as the Mining Management Act, which monitors mine and environmental regimes.
The new act includes objectives which better reflect the specific purpose of the legislation; a greater degree of environmental protection, particularly for parks such as the West MacDonnell Ranges, with the introduction of special reserves. This will provide increased flexibility and security when reserving areas from a particular activity.
The abolition of miners’ rights - this is an historical tenure which now has limited significance in providing access to land in the Territory.
The concept of preliminary exploration to allow the potential of land to be assessed for future exploration of minerals or extractives and exploration licences will continue to remain as the primary form of tenure for exploration; however, they will be able to be renewed. This will provide an incentive for explorers who need more time to complete their exploration programs.
Offshore exploration licences will be introduced to allow applications to be made over Territory waters which extend to the three nautical mile limit. There will be a new, short-term extractive mineral title to allow for the exploration of extractives. Mineral leases will continue to be the main form of tenure for mining operations, and extractive mineral permits and leases will remain as the primary form of tenure for the extractive industry.
The current act has a range of historic mining tenements which date back to the early 1900s, with many now held under a wrong title type. A practical example is the historic Grove Hill Hotel, north of Pine Creek, which is located on a mining tenement. There are two adjoining blocks; one vacant, the other with an established house, also held as mining tenements. It is proposed to rationalise these tenements and convert them to a title which better reflects their current use.
As mentioned earlier, mining has been an important part of the Territory economy and will continue to be. The first commercial gold field was developed in the Pine Creek district in early 1870 and continues to this day. Gold was first discovered in the golden heart of the Territory, Tennant Creek, around the 1930s.
The mining of manganese commenced on Groote Eylandt in the 1960s and, by the early 1990s, was the world’s third-largest producer of manganese. An open cut bauxite mine was developed on the Gove peninsula, and mining commenced in 1971. The mine produces approximately six million tonnes of bauxite per annum.
The mining of uranium commenced at Rum Jungle in 1954. When the mine closed in 1971, over 3500 tonnes of uranium oxide had been recovered from the mine. Open cut uranium mining commenced at the Ranger Mine in 1981, and continues to this day.
Iron ore was mined at Frances Creek from 1966 and stopped in 1974, following Cyclone Tracy and the closure of the old railway line. With the completion of the Alice to Darwin railway line, the Frances Creek mine was reopened. Territory Resources made the first shipment of iron ore to China in 2007, the first in over 30 years, using the railway and the Port of Darwin. In 2009-10, approximately two million tonnes of iron ore was exported to China.
The first commercial oil and gas was found at Mereenie in the early 1960s, and later at Palm Valley. In the 1980s, the gas was piped to Darwin to power the Channel Island Power Station. From 1969, exploration activity concentrated on the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf basin, and later in the Timor Sea.
In my electorate of Barkly, there is growing confidence in the mining sector, which is driving the town’s economy forward.
The member for Nelson’s words about the old mining tenements and mining fields were inspiring. I would like to make comment on some of the great historical photos from the Tennant Creek area, and the wonderful photos of miners’ camps draped in calico, and always in the background of the photo is a woman - a miner’s wife. The ones I enjoy most are of the impeccable white linen hanging on a clothesline somewhere in the Honeymoon Ranges or near the old Peko Mine, which reflects true pioneering spirit and recognises not only the miners in the industry, also the wives and families who support them.
The history of mining in Tennant Creek is colourful and exciting. I would like to talk about the Nobles Nob Mine. I have a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald; an article I picked up on the net which talks about the Tennant Creek area extensively.
There is a great legend from the Tennant Creek area which relates to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth visited Tennant Creek and was very interested to meet Jack Noble. Her son, Prince Charles, and Lady Diana visited Tennant Creek and were interested in Jack Noble as well. It came out many moons later when the Mayor of Tennant Creek met the Queen and discovered the link - she was a major shareholder in the Australian development company that took over the Nobles Nob tenements and turned the mine into one of the richest gold-producing mines Australia has seen.
We talked about having a fossicking field at Tennant Creek and tourism. We have a fossicking field west of Tennant Creek, and people are encouraged to fossick. As outlined by the member for Fong Lim, a great pastime with the potential to produce wealth.
Another great legend from Tennant Creek is Christ the King Church, first built in Pine Creek and moved to Tennant Creek in 1936, and located on a mining tenement. In relation to the story of Grove Hill, this legislation relates to converting these tenements to new uses. I am sure Christ the King sorted out its tenure a long time ago. The legend lives on from the early days when cracker dust from the mine was used as a dust suppression agent at the Christ the King Church in Smith Street. It was legend that after the rain you could find gold nuggets on your way home from Mass on Sunday morning.
I will move to the future of Tennant Creek and the Barkly in relation to this bill and talk about the excitement in and around the region, and the exploration programs taking place. Six exploration companies are currently operating in the east area of Tennant Creek and on the old tenements around Tennant Creek and, very exciting for the locals, exploring the legendary Rover Field approximately 80 km west of Tennant Creek. From information the exploration companies are providing to the community, very good assay results are coming back. They are doing much exploration and are very positive about it, which relates to not only a positive for Tennant Creek and the Barkly, also for the Northern Territory.
In relation to modern mining in the area, Bootu Creek manganese mine is located about 110 km north of Tennant Creek. This mine was commissioned in 2006, and it was the first mining company to use the Alice Springs to Darwin rail line to export the product through the Port of Darwin. This mine has the capacity to produce millions of tonnes of manganese annually.
It is interesting to note the work going on in the exploration for rock phosphate in the eastern Barkly. It stands as a substantial product for the Northern Territory which will benefit a global market for agriculture, and will also be a product which will be transported by road and rail to the Port of Darwin and exported all around the world.
In relation to the port and this bill, East Arm port is a vital link in the Territory’s international trade route connecting our road and rail network with Asia. More than $3bn of cargo is moved through East Arm Wharf annually, supporting 500 industries and thousands of jobs. It is used by a range of industries, including oil and gas, livestock exporters and, importantly, mining.
In June, I launched the East Arm Wharf Facilities Master Plan 2030, Land Use Strategy. The strategy developed by the Darwin Port Corporation provides a blueprint for future developments for land and sea based activities at the wharf. The master plan takes in government’s $150m program to upgrade the wharf’s infrastructure to increase trade opportunities and economic developments over the next 20 years.
The infrastructure program at the wharf is under way now. We will need a larger hardstand area to allow for the growth of our port. It is exciting when we look at the reclamation projects of Pond F – a $15m project, including access roads to the site in preparation for bulk earthworks. Since work started in April, fill has been sourced from the Tiger Brennan Drive project and additional fill will be required. I am sure the opportunity to tender for these contracts will be welcomed by our carting and trucking industries. Work has started on the $9.5m eastern reclamation area project, including site investigation and preliminary levelling of the area. This investment in bulk commodity loading and equipment will help drive the mining industry in the Territory through delivering efficiencies at our key export hub.
This government is delivering a strong economy. The passage of this bill is important for our future and the mining sector. Mining will remain a key driver in our economy, which is why we are investing at record levels in our roads, infrastructure, and our port.
I do not have to reiterate the enthusiasm from this side of the House, and the Territory’s bright future. The Tennant Creek area and the Barkly are set for another boom. The local community is excited about this. The rest of the Territory is also excited and watching as we prepare ourselves for another mining boom in a very credible industry which provides links to construction, transport, and Territory jobs.
Already our education sector is planning for this. There will be a major opportunity for young Territorians, not only from the Barkly but all over the Territory; new mines will come online, there will be transport logistics associated with that, major construction projects, and the delivery of jobs and livelihood for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. I note members contributing to the debate have a positive baseline with this. I believe it is going to committee stage, and there will be some very interesting questions asked of the minister. It is good to share in this House, on both sides, the enthusiasm for an industry which will go a long way to ensuring a very bright Northern Territory future.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also contribute briefly to this debate. Whilst I realise I have 30 minutes, I am not inclined to think I have to speak for 30 minutes. However, I wish to add a few observations in relation to the opinion of this side of the House to this bill.
It is good we are talking about a bill which deals primarily with the extractions of minerals from matters geological, because the government has moved in geological time scales in addressing some of the issues this bill attempts to address. This is an overdue bill and, whilst we welcome it, have the welcoming disposition of a person who impatiently has their arms folded across their chest and tapping their feet.
The extractive industry predates the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Its history in the Territory goes back a long way and, indeed, predates the Federation, of which we are now a part, albeit a limited and junior partner.
I was minded of some of the folly of South Australia in allowing the Northern Territory to be handed over to the federal government as a mere territory which was to be run, essentially, as an extension of some public service department. It is a sad tragedy the South Australian government did not listen to its own parliamentary committees in the late 1800s when it comes to the Territory. I have in my possession the parliamentary report handed to the minister, Hon J Langdon Parsons MP, member of the South Australian parliament which had jurisdictional control over the Northern Territory until 1911. It is a remarkable document by Mr Sowden, who was also a member of parliament and the party. I point out in the introduction what a folly it was, because Mr Sowden condescends to making these observations:
South Australia’s stupidity, for lack of a better description, in allowing the Northern Territory to be handed back to the Commonwealth has, ultimately, become the Northern Territory’s gain as a self-governing jurisdiction. Mr Sowden is a man of great literary skill. This is a parliamentary report you would not see produced in the modern world. Whilst it is some 180-odd pages long, much of it is spent dealing with all manner of issues, some of which had something to do with the purpose of the trip.
I note, with amusement, the title he applied to sharks as he was traversing the seas to come to what was then the town of Palmerston; he refered to them as sea lawyers. It took me some time to figure out what he was talking about, but it becomes obvious as I read on. Unimpressed as he was, his reference to our horses belies the place he came to:
Such was his view of the world. He went on to talk about our mining industry and it is interesting; the things which affected the mining industry then continue to affect the mining industry now. The document I am referring to is the Northern Territory Library reproduction Dewey Decimal No 919429. On page 48 of that document he said one of the problems with mining in the Northern Territory was:
It is true to this day; it continues to be a major problem.
I listened to the Minister for Transport on this issue, who made more than a passing reference to the mining industry in the Barkly. The party which visited the Northern Territory in 1882 went to some length to describe the gold mining industry, which was still burgeoning at the time, in the Pine Creek area. I am somewhat surprised, and ask the Minister for Transport about the reference he made to a seam of gold in the Tennant Creek area producing a total sum of 3000 ounces for a ton of gold. The general yardstick used is that there are 32 000 ounces in a ton, which is an imperial ton.
Mr McCarthy: Which ton?
Mr Knight: It was at Nobles Nob.
Mr McCarthy: I was talking about Nobles Nob.
Mr ELFERINK: Did that produce 3000 ounces per ton of gold?
Mr McCarthy: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? That is amazing. To give you an example, the biggest nugget ever found in Australia …
Mr McCarthy: Well, Hansard will record it, but I will read it again for you: one thousand ounces per metric tonne.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin and Minister for Correctional Services, this is not a debate across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. Continue with your speech, thank you, and minister, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps in the defence of the minister, I invited the interjection, however we will, I am sure, acquiesce to your ruling. I am sorry, minister, maybe I misunderstood, but I heard you to say 3000 ounces per ton. If that is what you said, it is an extraordinary thing.
The Welcome Stranger nugget, the largest nugget ever found in Australia, was 2316 ounces. If you allow 3000 ounces per ton, you are talking about an amount of gold which was about 10% of the ton of ore it was extracted from. If you turn to the report of the parliamentary party that visited the Northern Territory it puts it into perspective. I quote from page 58 of the document I referred to previously:
You could well understand my astonishment to hear a minister of the Crown claim a mine in the Northern Territory had produced as much as 3000 ounces per tonne. To put that into the modern perspective, depending on the gold price and talking about metric tonnes, the production of about three-and-a-half to four ounces per tonne is about what makes a gold mine productive. The minister’s 3000 ounces per ton was a truly surprising statement, and I would like to see that verified by whatever means he can. Furthermore, the most recent large nugget found in Australia was about 1979, called The Hand of Faith which returned a weight of about 845 ounces and was an international news story at the time.
I invite the minister to confirm the assertion he made because we require our ministers to be excruciatingly accurate in what they tell Territorians. I look forward to confirmation of particular figures because if that is the sort of gold being extracted in the Tennant Creek area, then it has a very lucrative future.
Madam Speaker, I know there are several questions shadow ministers have in relation to this matter and I look forward to them being able to examine the minister more closely through the committee stages. Other than that, the government can know and have comfort that whilst there are minor areas of difference, there is general support for the passage of this legislative instrument.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. Mining makes an important contribution to our economy. It supports local businesses, provides real jobs for Territorians, and mining continues to be the most significant industry in the Territory.
Its contribution to the economy accounts for 26.5% of the Territory’s growth state product. This value is more that three times the national contribution of mining, which is about 7% of the economy. The mining and energy sectors continue to be the key drivers of economic activity, and we are poised to take advantage of rises in global commodity prices and demands for energy. The resource sector also provides considerable opportunities for manufacturing in the Territory, including the Darwin LNG plant, BOC, a helium plant, and the aluminium refinery at Gove.
International exports continue to be an important contribution to the Territory’s economy. Exports account for around 39% of our economy, compared to nationally an average of only 20%. Put simply, the mining and energy sectors remain the cornerstone of our economy and we are focused on our international marketplace. Although mining makes a significant contribution to our economy, its overall contribution to direct employment is around 4% of total workers. In saying this, we should not underestimate the contribution the mining and energy sectors make to our economy. Our recent Northern Territory input and output study update showed for every $1000 of mining production the sector draws business worth around $250 for other Territory businesses. That equates to $1.2bn of business each year.
There are many examples of how it benefits our economy. In the Darwin/Winnellie area we have light industrial, right through to Tennant Creek and around the Adelaide River and Pine Creek areas, where mining keeps the local economy going.
The Department of Business and Employment hosted its 5th Annual Mining Services Expo at the Alice Springs Convention Centre in conjunction with the Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar. AGES is an iconic event, widely known within the exploration arena, and a business expo was also part of the event. The expo provided an excellent opportunity for Northern Territory businesses to showcase their capabilities. Two hundred and seventy-five geologists, researchers and consultants attended. There were 35 members from a Chinese delegation. It was great to have them there.
The expo consisted of 42 exhibitors, with 26 businesses represented from across the Territory. There were two from Tennant Creek, seven exploration companies from the Northern Territory, the Chamber of Commerce was well represented and, as part of the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers Council was there. The NTICN is very important to industry in the Territory. Also AAPA, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, is integral in getting access to land and sacred sites clearances; also the Minerals Council of Australia, and two other NT government agencies.
The two events form a perfect partnership in that AGES provides a captive audience to the expo. Success was measured by exhibitors advising substantial new business had been written as a direct result of these events; contacts were made; quotes for business goods and services provided, and referrals to fellow exhibitors were abundant. Most exhibitors at the event have signed up for booths next year, which is great news.
The types of business involved in supply and support of the mining industry span our whole economy: businesses that supply service, support mining firms during exploration, the development stage, the construction, operation and production stage, right through to the final rehabilitation work on the mines were all represented. There is a range of businesses getting something from mining industry.
The mining industry form parts of our trade strategy as well. We have the four-year trade strategy; the growing international trade priority action plan as part of the strategy. The action plan will ensure Territory businesses are well placed to benefit from the growing relationship with our near international neighbours, certainly in Indonesia with its mining activity. The core countries we are looking at are Japan, China and Indonesia - China with many resources, Japan with the energy sector, and Indonesia with supply and service. We are also looking at other emerging markets – Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Philippines and, of course, Timor-Leste is a growing nation we have a very strong relationship with. We look at those expanding areas.
We are very focused on building and expanding the base of our economy. I travelled to Japan in February to meet with INPEX, also GJC, which is doing their onshore feed at the moment and may take up the role of construction; they are certainly well experienced in that area. It was good to have George Roussos, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and Kevin Peters from the NTICN along to look at those opportunities. Also, the recent visit of the Chief Minister with INPEX, supporting, guiding, ensuring we steer the project to kick off, and we look forward to their final investment decision late next year.
Earlier this year I attended the OZMINE Expo in Jakarta. We had one of the biggest delegations from the Northern Territory - 27 delegates. We hosted a number of networking functions in the evening which proved to be probably the most valuable part of the journey. Businesses we travelled with made many contacts; talked a great deal of business; did many deals over a few drinks and had quiet chats with Indonesian mining companies, government officials, and we saw great opportunities.
I was fortunate to open the conference which was attended by representatives from around Australia. Queensland and Western Australia are trying to enter those markets; they failed to send any members of parliament, so we were very keen to get the business and show the Indonesian mining representatives the Northern Territory government is serious about going down this path.
I had the opportunity to meet the Trade Minister, Dr Mari Pangestu, a valuable connection, and also the Transport Minister, Freddy Numberi. Freddy comes from West Papua where there is much mining activity and, obviously, opportunity.
It was a very successful trip. The minister for Resources is trying to get mining activity happening in the Territory; I am trying to support that by getting more business, local and international, for the service and supply. It is very important.
Part of that trip to Jakarta was about inviting Indonesian mining companies to come to the third Indonesian Mining Procurement Forum held in Darwin on 29 April, which provided an opportunity to show buyers of services, equipment and supplies the capability in Darwin. It was a very good forum; 175 people attended, including 25 Indonesian representatives. The comments generally were: ‘We did not realise Darwin had that amount of amenity; we did not realise the capability of business in Darwin’. That keeps changing year by year; more businesses are coming here.
When I met West Australian business people in Jakarta I suggested they think about opening another office in Darwin. This is where it is all going to happen. I see the capability of Darwin as a service and supply centre for the mining industry in Indonesia growing.
We attended an expo in Balikpapan. I am hoping to seal stronger links with the provincial government of East Kalimantan. In comparison, it is the Western Australia of Indonesia - very big mining opportunities in that province. Local companies have many contracts from that work, including Bridge Autos for the supply of mine vehicles. Engine Engineering of Berrimah, and its Indonesian joint venture partner BT PowerTrans, have established an engine overhaul operation in Balikpapan. Linetec is exporting hydraulic ladders to local coal excavators in Indonesia. Also, Blackwoods at Winnellie is exploring opportunities for industrial hardware products throughout Asia. They are proving very successful.
I will move on to speak more specifically about the bill. We, on this side of the House, support mining investment into the Territory. I was surprised the federal CLP candidate for Lingiari recently ran the old yellow peril line ...
Mr Vatskalis: I would be too.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes. We are trying to encourage investment. The Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction in population and economy; we need investment to get mines off the ground, to get projects happening. We are attempting to form that relationship, and you have an alternative party saying: ‘Stay away; we do not want the Chinese to come here’. We have the Leader of the Opposition going to Taiwan, knowing there is not a good relationship between Taiwan and China, sending very bad messages from the CLP to the prime investors in the Northern Territory.
The initiatives I have mentioned are delivering real results. We have seen a record level of exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory. It must be highlighted, members opposite - the CLP - talked about mining, but when we came to office in 2001 there were 800 exploration licences sitting on the minister’s desk unsigned, piled probably to the roof, holding back mining in the Northern Territory. It was quite outrageous a Country Liberal Party would prevent mining exploration, thus mining operations, and a flow-on into our economy, income for small businesses, and revenue derived from taxation. It is quite incredible.
While most other Australian jurisdictions went backwards during the global financial crisis, the Territory saw year-on-year record levels of exploration expenditure which will flow through the Territory’s economy by creating jobs in our region and supporting Territory businesses.
We will only see this level of investment if there is certainty and confidence in our resources sector and the Mineral Titles Bill will greatly assist in providing that certainty.
The Mineral Titles Bill provides a legislative framework for the exploration, extraction and processing of minerals in the Territory. It is complemented by the Mining Management Act, a totally separate act, which regulates mining activities, the management of mine sites, and environmental protection of mine sites. The Mineral Titles Bill before the House today, as the title reflects, is about legislation for the granting of titles.
It is timely to replace the Mining Act, which has been in operation for 30 years; it is certainly necessary. I understand sections of the existing act which have served us well have been retained, so we have not entirely thrown the baby out with the bath water. We recognise the industry has changed since the Mining Act was first introduced.
The bill before the House has been compared with similar legislation across the nation and has been subject to the most comprehensive consultation process. Not only has a discussion paper been released, submissions called, and a summary of the recommendations published, a series of meetings were held across the Territory, and the turnout to some of those meetings reflected the success of the consultation undertaken by the government.
The new act also takes into account changes in technology leading to new procedures and practices changing the way business is conducted. With the new NBN initiative of the Gillard government, you will see another change in technology. The Mineral Titles Bill also has regard to the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, particularly land access to Aboriginal land.
The Territory’s reliance on the international marketplace makes us players in the global economy. There have been changes to the makeup of the exploration industry itself, with a move away from small miners and prospectors to corporate focus and large scale commercial operators. This is a function of the mining industry itself, being a capital intensive industry. The Mineral Titles Bill provides for the smaller- and medium-sized operators as well.
We have also seen a giant leap in broad area exploration using remote sensing technology. Airborne surveys are proving to be instrumental in unlocking prospective ground, and it is an area where industry recognises the efforts of the Henderson Labor government to assist explorers. We provide a great deal of geotechnical data at no cost to potential explorers to promote the Territory as the place to do business. This data will reduce the risk to explorers, or, put another way, provides the greatest opportunity for success in the field. This information is readily available to explorers.
The bill will assist industry, through greater transparency, in the issuing and managing of mineral applications and titles. The act includes a ‘use it or lose it’ provision. It seeks to create and promote an attitude that, while we are open for business, explorers must be active on the ground or risk the ground being turned over to others who will do the work. It will outline clear expectations the titleholder will explore stronger intervention provisions, the introduction of financial and other penalties, and improved reporting requirements.
The bill provides for a higher level of protection and setting areas aside through granting of reservation of occupation. For example, a special reservation from occupation can be created by the minister to set aside an area from exploration and mining. In effect, it applies a moratorium on the exploration of mining in the area covered by the reserve. The reserve from occupation can also be applied to create a moratorium from exploration or mining in a particular area to provide additional protection for a particular activity. A reservation from occupation could be put in place by government to set aside suitable areas to, say, build a bridge if it was the only suitable area available and there were no existing titles issued over the area. The provisions are not specific in their application; they provide for areas to be set aside for the benefit of the Territory.
The RO is a subject I have been dealing with in my electorate, and I support ROs. Some areas which have had exploration licences placed on them I would class as family homes, and this flexibility provides for protection of those landholders, especially in the rural area.
In closing, I highlight our minerals resources belong to all Australians and there is a clear choice in this debate. The Gillard Labor government wants all Australians to share in the commodity boom; Tony Abbott and the Liberals do not. The Gillard Labor government will cut taxes for small to medium business by raising revenues which belong to Australians; Tony Abbott will increase taxation. The revenue derived from the mining industry will give nest eggs to the retirees, and Tony Abbott does not want to do that. The Gillard government wants to create an infrastructure fund. We hear all the time the roads are not good enough for this activity. This is the area the infrastructure fund would go into. Tony Abbott wants to put money in the pocket of big business.
Madam Speaker, these reforms will deliver flexibility for mining exploration companies. They will encourage active exploration, provide certainty of title, and provide a platform for the next stage of development in the sector. This bill will achieve that. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, it was a very interesting debate and I thank all members for their contribution. I am very proud today because in 2004, as minister for Mines, I approved the terms of reference for the review. I started it, and it has gone through two different ministers. The member for Drysdale, Chris Natt, took over, and finally I am presenting this bill to parliament today.
This is the most comprehensive review of the Mining Act - the act which controls mining in the Territory - for the past 30 years. As the member for Katherine mentioned, in 1990 the CLP contemplated doing a review but did not.
To say this review took too long is a little cheeky; however, I will not say it came very quickly. It had to take time. We called for submissions and had extensive consultation with experts within the industry. As a result, we received 44 different submissions which we considered; we talked to legal firms and, after the bill was read for the second time in parliament, more people contacted us. As a result of that input, I have some committee stage amendments to bring in today.
I make no apology for extensive consultation with the stakeholders; the mining industry is very important to the Territory because it is 26% of our GDP and employs about 4000 people. It is only fair to consult that industry.
You also have to remember this process took place when the Territory experienced an exploration boom; the Territory became the only jurisdiction in Australia to have an increase in expenditure in exploration while other states suffered big declines in exploration, with 49% decline in South Australia.
At the same time we have seen an influx of investment from China and Japan through our China and Japan investment strategies. It is very disappointing to hear Barnaby Joyce, and the Country Liberal candidate in Lingiari, and most recently the federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, express concern about the level of Chinese investment in Australia. I have not seen any comments about the level of American or European investment in Australia. In some cases, these investments are much higher than the Chinese, and some companies which invest in Australia have a budget two or three times the budget of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I particularly thank the member for Katherine who did a really good job; he went through the bill highlighting issues which concerned him and he wanted details. I am very pleased to explain these issues to him. For example, he expressed concern clauses 193(2)(a) and (f), referring to transitional arrangements, would be a very subjective arrangement by the minister. I have to inform you, member for Katherine, the framework for transitional appeal provisions is dealt with under clauses 204(d), 203(4)(d), 202(3)(c) and (v) of the bill. There is already a mechanism for appeal in the bill if someone is not satisfied with transitional arrangements.
Also, regulations will be developed to highlight the appeal details. On principle, all land matters can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I know they have expressed concern over when the regulations will be developed. I have asked the department, as soon as this bill passes, to immediately start drafting the regulations because I want them in a timely manner in order to put this act into place very quickly.
The member for Katherine asked how many titles I granted under the 1903 act; I am pleased to advise there were only two mineral leases.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. The correct name of the garden lease is ‘market garden areas’. The other matter regarding reserve from occupation is to be dealt with by regulation, not legislation. The current legislative framework is adequate to deal with issues raised. It will be administratively easier to incorporate concerns raised by the member for Nelson in the regulations at the time they are developed, and they will be circulated for comments. There will be a public scrutiny period when developing the regulations before they are proclaimed by the Administrator.
I turn to comments made by the member for Fong Lim with regard to the fossicking provisions. I understand Mr MacMahon is very determined, and very active. I ask him to write to my ministerial office next time not my home. Sometimes mail is mixed up with family correspondence, and it can take days before I find out Mr MacMahon raised some issues. The government supports the program for fossicking in the Northern Territory, and this current legislation will strengthen fossicking in the Territory.
Yes, there are differences between us and Western Australia. Western Australia has a different regime to the Territory. We believe people should ask permission from landholders to enter areas. Queensland, Victoria and South Australia have very similar provisions to us, and we will continue discussions with the fossicking lobby. I have asked the department to examine the provisions in Western Australia to see how they apply in order to adjust our legislation if we wish following consultation, to the Western Australia regime.
When we communicated with the Resources Council we were surprised to discover no member of the opposition had spoken to them about fossicking. We also communicated with the Cattlemen’s Association, who also advised no member of the opposition had spoken to them about their change in policy regarding fossicking. They further advised they will strongly oppose any change in the current regime. Cattlemen want to say who gets onto a pastoral lease and who does not. Once again, the member for Fong Lim and the opposition did not consult with anyone. It seems to be their usual practice.
The member for Fong Lim seems to be confused about fossicking and preliminary exploration. However, the provisions in this bill strengthen the ability for both activities to occur. We do not have alluvial gold as in Western Australia, which makes it easier for fossickers to discover gold or other minerals. As I said before, my department will look very closely at the Western Australia regime to see if there are any changes we can implement.
The member for Fong Lim pointed out if the landholder does not respond in two months to the notice of intention to undertake activity on their land the licence holder has an automatic right of access. He questioned that. The same provisions are in the existing act; this is nothing new. The principle is the landholder has an opportunity to raise concerns which are required to be dealt with prior to the licence holder entering land. The time frame for these issues to be raised is two months.
I will turn to the member for Goyder. The member for Goyder is lazy. While the member for Katherine spent time and effort going through the legislation, examining and assessing it, asking questions, the member for Goyder pretended to read her speech which is really not her speech. It is a letter from Ward Keller, the legal firm addressed to my department. In June, my department approached Ward Keller and asked for their opinion. Ward Keller provided a response on Monday, 16 August 2010. Yes, it is a little late; I acknowledge that, however Ward Keller provided a number of questions.
The member for Goyder plagiarised that letter - and I table the letter. She plagiarised that letter word for word. The only thing she changed is where it says ‘we’ she said ‘I’. I challenge you, when you receive Hansard tomorrow take the letter from Ward Keller and Hansard, put them side by side and you will see - not similar, identical. I well recall a debate we had in parliament with the member for Port Darwin regarding plagiarism. That is nothing more than plagiarism by the member for Goyder.
Since I have tabled the letter, and the member for Goyder has a copy of that letter, I will respond to the issues raised in the Ward Keller letter.
Item 1, section 202(3)(a) of the bill with regard to Aboriginal land rights: the advice received through the drafting process has not identified the issues raised as being critical. However, there are a large number of titles to be transitioned, and it will be necessary to deal with some of these case-by-case. If problems are identified they will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Item 2 in the Ward Keller letter: new transfer and dealings provisions in Division 1 of Part 7: from extensive legal advice obtained by the Department of Justice in respect of transfer and dealings, the bill is consistent with that advice.
Item 3 of the Ward Keller letter mentioned clauses 20(a), 21(2)(b) etcetera. Section 192 provides that regulations can provide for notice. This deals with the notice to landholders, and the regulations will apply.
Item 4, clause 4(2) of the bill does not reflect the purpose of the Mining Management Act. The comments are agreed; however, there is a suggestion the drafting is changed, and it will be changed.
The only area I agree with is item 5, which says the example provided at clause 11(2)(d) of the bill is misleading. The example could be better worded, and should be ‘compulsory acquisition of the title’, not land, and we intend to change that prior to the regulations being proclaimed.
Item 6, the right of occupation granted for a mineral exploration licence pursuant to clause 26(1)(a) of the bill. The right of exploration of a licence holder to occupy the land to carry out exploration is a fundamental right which needs to be recognised by other landholders and is, therefore, included in the act.
Item 7, the exclusive right to apply for a mineral lease. The issue of applying for a mineral lease for infrastructure over another person’s EL - exploration licence - will be dealt with by regulations.
Item 8, seeking confirmation regarding the operations of clause 29 of the bill - confirmed. The reduction of the exploration licence is only in the initial six-year period.
Item 9, querying whether there is any underlying purpose for the language used in clause 34. Yes, designation of a retention area is not subject to native title.
Item 10, regarding clause 38(1): notice, as suggested in the comments, is already in the bill and you can see it at section 39.
Item 11, the bill does not appear to contain the Mining Act provision which provides compensation to an exploration retention licence holder. I agree with that. This provision was not included. Historically, they have never been used – never used these provisions.
Item 12, the letter from Ward Keller states:
Exploration retention areas for ancillary purposes are not considered necessary. Mineral leases will cater for ancillary areas.
Item 13, clause 65(3) of the bill prevents the grant of any mineral title over an existing mineral title. Yes, the intention is to allow EMPs and EMLs to be applied for and granted over an exploration licence.
Item 14, clause 76(4)(a) of the bill provides the regulations to determine the maximum size of a mineral lease and an exploration mineral lease. This comment is erroneous; clause 76 deals with survey requirements, not area, as per the letter from Ward Keller.
Item 15 is clearly a comment on drafting style, and the same applies for Item 16 of the Ward Keller letter.
Item 17, the letter from Ward Keller states:
This statement is incorrect. The bill will allow for the grant of an EMEL within an EL.
Item 18, we have received legal advice which suggests access means to enter and leave a site. Access does not mean just go in, it also means go out.
Item 19, clause 88(a). Clause 88(a) refers to damage to improvements on the land, and not damage to the land. It is not inconsistent with the bill.
Item 20, refund of rent where title is surrendered is a matter for regulation, and that you can see in clauses 190 (2)(h) and (i).
Comment 21 in the Ward Keller letter is noted. It is a drafting style issue.
Item 22, the issue has been considered and is not seen as a problem; a dealing is a dealing.
Item 23, the suggested inclusion is already in the bill at clause 130(3).
Item 24, at section 181(1) of the Mining Act, authorisation exists, therefore, a saving provision is not required.
Item 25, clause 201 of the bill, which provides for the conversion of existing mineral interests to the corresponding mineral title, does not appear to provide for the extractive mineral lease interest granted. Note, at section 104(2) of the Mining Act, the authority exists, therefore, no transitional provision is required.
Finally, Item 26 – we note the comment. The Interpretation Act preserves the title under sections 191(19) and (20) of the Mining Act.
The member for Goyder asked about authorised officers and their extensive powers. In the past it was a matter of questioning the extent of power provided by certain legislation. I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel the provisions in the Mineral Titles Bill are standard provisions sanctioned by the Department of Justice using various legislation of the Northern Territory. I can refer to a list of legislation. When I was an Environmental Health Officer I had the power to enter a premises without a warrant. I also had the power to seize items which were of interest to public health without a warrant.
Similar provisions apply to the Plant Disease Control Act, the Livestock Act, the Workplace Health and Safety Act, the Fuel Subsidies Act - in the old act which was passed in 1998 - and, of course, the Liquor Act, which gives much power to inspectors who are not police officers to search and seize, tip out liquor, or remove people from places. Those provisions include the power to use reasonable force, and we do not use reasonable force in the Mining Management Act or the Geothermal Energy Act.
I thank members for their comments. Thank you very much, member for Katherine. I appreciate the work you have done on the bill. I mean that genuinely because you put your effort there rather than read someone else’s legal advice of which you received a copy. I also thank the member for Nelson and the member for Fong Lim; he spoke about what he believes in.
My disappointment was the member for Goyder. It would not be demeaning to say: ‘I received legal advice and I am going to bring it to your attention’. Instead, she chose not to mention that. You read it like it was your own work, which is plagiarism. A briefing was provided to the member for Goyder on 3 July, and again today at 9.30 am. None of the issues raised in the House today from the Ward Keller letter provided as a copy were raised during the briefing.
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to go to the committee stage amendments and finalise this bill after six years, not eight years.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move from my current location to the chair of the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you have my leave to do that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Mineral Titles Bill 2010 (Serial 98) together with Schedule of Amendments No 38, circulated by the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.1 standing in my name.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, we had a briefing this morning, but I want it on the Hansard. We were advised this morning that the changes to clause 8 were for the purpose of having tourist fossicking, which is a commercial venture, conducted on that person’s mineral lease. Is that in case …
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, by the holder of the mineral lease.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: On their particular one?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.2 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.3 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 39, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.4 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.5 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.6 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is a new area, I presume, minister. You are now going to put a clause in this section which will be 40(1)(b)(iii) which comes under a mineral lease. Someone who wants to conduct tourist fossicking will have to do it on a mineral lease that they own, is that right?
Mr VATSKALIS: The holder of the mineral lease has the ability under the act to conduct the commercial fossicking activity, and he can conduct it in his mineral lease.
Mr WOOD: Will he have to fulfil all the conditions someone who has a mineral lease would have to fulfil?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: I am making sure I do not get lost. I am getting the numbers on the side column mixed up. I was looking at 38.10 which is really clause 83. Sorry.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.7 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.8 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 82, by leave, taken together.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, when you say 45, is 46 the extracted minerals – exploration, surface extraction and mining? Is that the area we are at? Am I reading it incorrectly? I want clarification of where to jump in and ask questions.
Mr VATSKALIS: We are moving to have clauses 45 to 82 stand as printed.
Ms PURICK: Clause 45? Madam Chair said 46 to 80 something.
Madam CHAIR: No, I am asking the committee if they wish to move clauses 45 to 82 together. If you have questions, member for Goyder, you can ask them now.
Ms PURICK: I wanted some points of clarification with regard to the extractive minerals area. What regulation governs borrow pits the government digs up to find extracted material for the building of roads? How are they regulated?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been advised there is an agreement with the department of Transport regarding rehabilitation. At the same time, this act binds the Crown. If the act is calling for rehabilitation of gravel pits, the department of Transport, or whichever government agency operates it, has to comply with the requirements of the department.
Ms PURICK: Under this legislation there is an agreement with the department of Construction or Transport that borrow pits are regulated?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is an ongoing agreement about the rehabilitation of borrow pits. What I am saying is this legislation binds the Crown. This argument is now strengthened because we can request rehabilitation of gravel pits which come under these regulations - not historical, not what happened 20 years ago, but gravel pits that are going to be extracted by government departments.
Ms PURICK: To continue, yes, the Crown is bound; I understand that. When work is undertaken at borrow pits and there is a safety issue, is that regulated by the office of WorkSafe? Do they investigate?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is correct.
Clauses 45 to 82, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 83:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.9, inviting defeat of clause 83. After clause 82, I have a new clause 83, a right to construct roads for access to title area.
Clause 83 negatived.
New clause 83:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.10 inserting a new clause 83 in the bill.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: This is an issue that came up in the briefing this morning, minister. For the purposes of Hansard, we were advised the suggestion for changing this particular clause came from Parliamentary Counsel for legal reasons. Can you explain the paradigm of thinking behind Parliamentary Counsel for these particular changes?
Mr VATSKALIS: That was a drafting change by Parliamentary Counsel. The intent of the clause has not changed; just how they put it together.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: Effectively, it does not change the meaning of the clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the intent remains the same.
Mr WOOD: I would like to raise a matter regarding clause 83(2)(a). Am I able to discuss that now?
Madam CHAIR: Which one?
Mr WOOD: It is 83(2)(a), which is to do with the right to construct roads for access to title area, and it says:
Mr VATSKALIS: This refers to the holder of a mineral title who has to have access to his mineral lease. Clause 83 prescribes the shortest practicable route from any of the following: a council road or Territory road; a railway line; an airstrip; the sea; or a waterway. Of course, that cannot happen in isolation; it has to be in consultation with the local authority or the government to find not only the shortest route, but a suitable route. It is not carte blanche dig a road because it is the shortest. There will be other provisions applied such as environmental issues, and other things that have to be …
Mr WOOD: This might sound like the bleeding obvious, but where would it say a company has to talk to the council? If you have a road going close to a title area, so they have to use that road - it is a council road, and there might be a council drainage reserve or parkland. Is it common courtesy, or do they have to talk to the council about running a road through that property?
Mr VATSKALIS: Planning issues would be involved; there would be environmental issues involved. It is not carte blanche to dig a road. It has to comply with other requirements to build that road. Does where it is going to be put through impact on the freehold, impact on a pastoral lease, is it going to have an environmental impact? All these issues which are not controlled by the legislation have to be assessed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I will try to give a practical example. The land on the Howard Peninsula is extractive, but it is also Crown land. They go through Crown land to get onto Thorngate Road, so when they apply for an extractive mineral lease on that land an advertisement goes into the paper. Where does it say they must negotiate with the landowner, the Crown, as to where the road out of that land will be constructed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 190 describes that. Clause 190(2)(g) says:
It will be prescribed under regulations.
Mr WOOD: I did not catch the clause number.
Mr VATSKALIS: 190.
Mr WOOD: 190.
Mr VATSKALIS: 190(2)(g). Regulation may provide for any of the following:
Mr WOOD: Will we be able to look at the regulations when they come up for discussion, because there are many regulations?
Mr VATSKALIS: When the regulations are drafted they will be circulated, not only to members of parliament, but also to the industry for comment and input.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
New clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 109, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 110:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move amendment 38.11 standing in my name.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: On this particular issue, the mediator will be appointed from the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.12 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is the section which allows more transparency in decision-making. I was going to ask for a point of clarification which I believe I raised at the briefing. However, if anyone has been following issues in Queensland and New South Wales regarding the coal seam industry, there has been much debate about whether this industry is going to ruin some of the best farming lands in Queensland and New South Wales. Is it possible if there was some good land - could be at Ord Stage 3, could be on the Sturt Plateau - if there was a request for that land to be protected from mining because of its value from an agricultural point of view, would it come under this clause or would it come under the general reserved land clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: The Ord River is currently reserved, however any land where this a proper application in the proper form, as prescribed in this legislation, can be preserved by the minister’s decision.
Mr WOOD: Someone could apply and ask you to reserve land based on its agricultural benefits?
Mr VATSKALIS: The new clause includes, in 3(c), the reason for the reservation. The person has to explain to the minister the reason for the reservation.
Mr WOOD: What about in relation to protection of water? In theory, the water is a mineral and belongs to the Crown. Could someone say we do not want mining there because it would use water which should be used for agriculture? Is it the same thing, or is it different because the government owns the water and a private person could not ask for that?
Mr VATSKALIS: They can apply for a reservation but the allocation of water for agricultural or other uses comes under NRETAS. That mechanism would be equally as strong as this one, and people would apply under NRETAS rather than the Mining Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.13 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is the area I get a little lost in. I had a draft amendment which said things similar to the minister’s requirements under the special reserve. My reading of clauses 113, 114, 115 and 116 is it is much shorter than I was told was going to come forward. I was expecting to see a section which spoke about the minister, made by a Gazette notice, which revoked the reservation, etcetera - very similar to the previous reserve requirements. Why has that been taken out and replaced with a shorter version?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 113(3) is very similar to clause 112(3) to (6). It is identical in (3).
Mr WOOD: Pardon me, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we are looking at amendment 38.13 on your blue sheet.
Mr WOOD: The reason for the reservation - I beg your pardon. We are doing 113(3)(c)?
Madam CHAIR: Amendment 38.13.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.14 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: I am missing a page; that is the trouble, Madam Chair. The changes to 113 which are inserted after (3)(e), my understanding is to ensure the minister advises people. If he thinks it is appropriate, he will put a notice in the newspaper.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, a review of the reservation.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.15, standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is the part I thought had been changed. We had some questions during briefings over this; a draft clause (4) has been changed, but a section was going to be put in saying: ‘The minister may, by Gazette notice, revoke the reservation of all or part of’, which is similar to clause 112(6). I thought that was to be repeated under this section. It seems that has not happened, and I am wondering if you can explain why.
Mr VATSKALIS: The process describing how to do it will be in the regulations. The act provides the overall legislative framework, otherwise we will have an act which prescribes everything and will be Volume I of VII. It is better to have it in the regulations. Also, if you want to change something, it is easier to change regulations rather than the whole act.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand that, minister. I was trying to compare it with clause 112 where you describe what you were going to do, which was not quite followed through on the general reserve requirements. That is what I was getting at.
Mr VATSKALIS: It will be prescribed in the regulations.
Mr WOOD: Why was it left in? It appears to be left in clause 112 for a special reserve; however, it does not seem to be the same for the general reserve. I thought the two would mirror one another.
Mr VATSKALIS: The advice I received is to review all the processes for the general reservation is much longer, bigger and more convoluted than one to prescribe a special reservation. However, it will be highlighted and outlined in the regulations.
Mr WOOD: I will be looking forward to the regulations, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 114 to 129, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 129A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.16 standing in my name to insert a new clause 129A.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, what sort of personal property is referred to under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the proposed amendment is a new clause which mirrors a proposed amendment to the Mining Act by the Personal Property Securities (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill, which is presently before the Legislative Assembly for debate.
The provision clarifies the mining industry is not personal property; it is real property. The Personal Property Securities (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill is part of a scheme to establish a national registration scheme. It is national legislation which we will be adopting, and under this legislation the mining industry is not a personal property, it is a real property.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am a little confused. The reference in clause 129A is the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 of the Commonwealth. Are you saying that is in the federal parliament for debate?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, and it will adopted by all states and territories.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Can you explain in layman’s terms, if possible, the upshot of inserting this clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is national legislation, and there are no ifs and buts; all states and territories have agreed, at COAG, to comply with it. We cannot stay out of it. That will prescribe what we can have, and everyone else will adopt it. By converting the mining property to real property is to agree with the …
New clause 129A agreed to.
Clauses 130 to 133, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 134:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.17 regarding clause 134(1).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.18 standing in my name regarding clause 134(2).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.19 standing in my name regarding clause 134(2)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.20 standing in my name regarding clause 134(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause134, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 159, by leave, taken together.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some questions.
How many declared fossicking areas are there in the Northern Territory, and has there been a new area declared in the last five years? If not, why not? When can we expect a new fossicking area to be declared given the interest we know is out there?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is about eight or nine specifically declared fossicking areas. However, fossickers can fossick on Crown land, or they can fossick in areas with the permission of the landowner.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I know that. My other question was: when was the last time a new area was declared? Given those areas have been well worked over, does the government have plans for opening up new fossicking areas?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Goyder, as I said in my speech, I have asked the department to look at the current Western Australia legislation and come back to me with suggestions about its operation, how we operate here, compare it and, if necessary, see what we can adopt from Western Australia or other states which have a different fossicking system to us. We can then proceed to declare new fossicking areas.
Ms PURICK: Minister, has the department undertaken any research work to gain a better feel for the value the fossicking sector plays to the economy? Has any work been done similar to that in other states? Has your department done any work to tell us exactly how much it is worth?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the department has not done this work. It does not have the capability to do the economic research. We can work together with our counterparts in Western Australia to find what the impact of fossicking would be, let us say, on regional tourism.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some specific questions in regard to clauses 138 and 139, which are probably a point of clarification. Clause 138 says a person who wishes to fossick on pastoral land:
(b) if required by regulation …
I am trying to understand, for the pastoral land and also exploration licence land, which is very similar wording, does the person only need to give notice to the landowner, or the tenement owner, and then access the land? Is the legislation going to be that they can give notice to the landowner, or the tenement holder, that they would like to access the land, are told no, in which case they cannot? I am trying to understand the legal responsibilities of the titleholder if a fossicker enters their exploration licence and falls down a hole, then sues the company. I am trying to get it clear in the two clauses, pastoral land and licence, if they request access and are denied it, is that okay; that is that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 138(3), says:
The way to obtain a licence, whether written or oral, would be prescribed by the regulations.
Clauses 135 to 159 agreed to.
Clause 160:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.21 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some questions regarding authorised officers.
Madam CHAIR: You are a little late jumping in there. The advice of the Clerk is we can give you one last chance, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr Clerk. I am sorry for my tardiness.
Minister, I want some clarification, because I mentioned authorised officers in my speech - clause 177, General Powers. I understand what the authorised officer is, a necessary person under the legislation; however, I am very concerned with clause 177(1)(b); it is hard to understand the definition of:
I believe it is a little ambiguous, and if I can go through a few you can see where my concerns are.
Clause 178(2):
Clause 178(2)(g):
I am also concerned about clause 179:
Minister, I cannot see where, if these things are seized and the person is detained and searched, any rights are given to the individual who has succumbed to these searches. It does not talk about any receipts given to individuals for the seizure of property. Clause 178(5):
That is fine. Does the person who has had this thing seized receive a copy of this report? Clause 178(5)(b):
That is fine. Does the person get these things back? I am looking at it from a legal perspective. It seems to be all for the authorised officer and not for the individual.
Mr VATSKALIS: When I was working as an Environmental Health Officer I had the power to enter premises without warrant and to seize equipment - to seize some material without any warrant. Notices to relevant people were given and were prescribed by regulation, not by the Health Act. Forms would have to be provided to the person if you seized a piece of equipment or material; it would be prescribed by regulation. This is not unique in this act. In sections 22 to 28 of the Plant Disease Control Act there are powers of an authorise officer, and section 57 refers to using reasonable force.
Also, sections 93 to 111 of the Livestock Act, especially section 101, refer to using reasonable force. The Workplace Health and Safety Act refers to reasonable force. The Fuel Subsidies Act and the Liquor Act refer to reasonable force.
We have legislation where people are not police officers. There is reference to ‘reasonable force’, and these people have to have training, be supervised and have support.
I had the argument with the member for Port Darwin, who was a policeman, over ‘reasonable force’. For a public servant a ‘reasonable force’ is totally different from a policemen using reasonable force in a different circumstance.
Again, these people will be trained and will be supervised. Should people require it, all they have to say is ‘prescribed property’. That property will be recorded, and the forms will be prescribed in the regulations.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We are taking the rest of the bill, aren’t we? Thank you.
Regulations are mentioned throughout the bill, however, I refer to the reference to regulations in this latter part of the bill. Minister, can you give an indication of how long before you expect the regulations for this bill will be completed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Following the passing of this bill the department will start working on the regulations with Parliamentary Counsel. It does not depend on us; it depends on Parliamentary Counsel and how quickly they can draft the regulations. However, work will start immediately. My intention is to have this act operational as soon as possible and we cannot do it without the regulations. We have regulations in the Mining Act. We can model on them, adopt them, adjust them and put new regulations in place, should it be required, in accordance with this act.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, I am referring to clauses 197 to 200, which talk about transitional arrangements. Can you tell me how many mineral claims - because some mineral claims will be affected by these transitional arrangements - we currently have in the Territory which would be captured under these transitional arrangements? You may need to take this question on notice: where are they and are any businesses built around them? I am referring to Grove Hill and similar places.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will take it on notice and provide the information to you as soon as possible.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. You mentioned earlier the two titles under the old Northern Territory Mining Act 1903 of South Australia are caught up in the transitional arrangements. Where are those titles located?
Mr VATSKALIS: In Maranboy; both of them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Maranboy, my old stomping ground. No problems.
Regarding the provisions around clauses 198 and 199, is there an appeal process? I am having a quick look at the act as we speak. This relates to grants or renewals of corresponding applications, or where there is no corresponding application. You said in your wrap-up speech there was an appeal process. Could you please outline that for me?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is an appeal process under section 202(3)(c)(v) and 204(d).
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. No further questions.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the second report of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
I commend the council; its work has been an evolving work. There has been much controversy about the council and that will continue, however I believe things have progressed. I believe opposition members can see the value of the council and the work it does. It has been the source of more information for the opposition, and a direct conduit to senior public servants and briefings. I believe the information flowing from the Council of Territory Cooperation has been beneficial to the governance of the Territory.
The council has examined many important issues. The report contains 14 recommendations related to Power and Water, which is a focus of the committee, and essential services.
Statistics used by the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Police in the reporting of crime are an issue of vital importance to the people of the Northern Territory. However, it was this government, under Attorney-General Peter Toyne, which undertook and carried through on regular reporting of crime statistics to the public of the Northern Territory. I believe it has brought much more stability to the debate. I know people interpret statistics in different ways, however these are statistics generated by the police and reported to the public on a regular basis. That gives a basis for informed debate, not only in this House, also in the community generally.
There were issues around the shires, non-government organisations, and Indigenous housing. It is that issue I would like to focus on today in outlining the government response, which I have in my hand and is being tabled.
In relation to the Power and Water Corporation, a number of recommendations made by the CTC have been agreed to, namely recommendations 1 and 2. The third recommendation, regarding the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer attending a CTC hearing to determine their involvement and level of knowledge of what transpired, the government does not agree with. We have a position regarding the appearance of ministers before the council. We stated, from the outset, the council could examine public servants and others such as GOCs, but it is not intended that ministers appear before the council in order to keep politics out of the council as much as possible.
Ministers continue to answer questions in parliament in Question Time and at the Estimates Committee. As members would be aware, without divulging privilege from the Standing Orders Committee, we have been given a reference via this parliament to consider the reform of estimates over a whole range of issues, and that is a very important debate occurring in the Standing Orders Committee.
The CTC recommends statistics used by the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Police relating to the reporting of crime, especially domestic violence-related crime, be accurate and consistent with one another; if not, explanations be given to interpret the differences. The Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice record offence crime statistics which are accurate and consistent for the whole of the Northern Territory. However, statistics may continue to differ at a regional level. Police, necessarily, report crime statistics based on the boundaries defined by regional command structure. The Department of Justice reports crime statistics based on national boundaries defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. There is a valid reason why there might be some differences between the two.
Recommendation 5 of the CTC says:
Recommendation 6 says:
The government’s position is we have noted this recommendation and, as stated in the 2010-11 Northern Territory Budget Overview, the Northern Territory government will work in conjunction with the Commonwealth and local governments to plan the staged roll-out of government business centres in Territory growth towns, providing residents with convenient access to a wide range of government services.
I acknowledge there has been much change in the bush for people – there is no doubt about that - with the intervention, the change to shires, SIHIP; a whole range of issues. I acknowledge, and many bush members acknowledge, people are having difficulties - people on local bodies, and citizens in the bush. We have to engage with them and support them. There is much work to be done, and I commend the work of local members and government officials who are working towards that end. We acknowledge there has been change, however, we have strategies. We have our worthwhile growth towns’ strategy where we look at the economy, the governance, and the future of our growth towns.
It is more than the growth towns; it is the people who live in them, particularly the young people, transitioning people from education and training into real jobs; providing real business opportunities within the growth towns; and recognising those growth towns as they have evolved as major population centres in the Territory. Some of the growth towns will rival regional centres up and down the Stuart Highway, and already do. I believe it was timely this government recognised those demographic shifts and the needs of people who live there.
Recommendation 7:
In the context of what I have already said, we agree with that recommendation.
Recommendation 8:
We have agreed with that, and the department will write to Indigenous Business Australia seeking confirmation that funds from the HOIL program are to be utilised to construct dwellings which meet existing agreed national standards for Indigenous community housing.
Recommendation 9:
Once again, there is agreement from government on that recommendation. The comment is the Local Government Act outlines essential qualifications for council CEOs and, for those who have been around a while; this has been an ongoing problem and challenge about the qualifications and capacity of our CEOs in local shires. In many instances, there has been complete meltdown at that local level for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the one identified in the comment made by government.
We are monitoring these requirements to ensure compliance with the act, and also provide advice from time to time to assist shires in developing their organisational structures and governance issues. This is a long journey. There has been much debate about local government reform, and much heat, although it is something this government believed it had to embark on. It is a big issue and will take some time to move to where we want to be.
Recommendation 10.
Most of the recommendations from 10 to 14 are in the area of SIHIP; a very important area. I have ministerial responsibility for SIHIP and, as has been said on a number of occasions in this parliament, it is a massive project: $1.7bn over 10 years as part of a national partnership agreement. The first tranche of that funding is $672m over 10 years.
The member for Braitling, on several occasions, not least of all 8 June 2010, spoke about a missing $200m from SIHIP. He went through the MOU signed prior to the 2007 federal election and raised a number of issues in relation to that MOU. I have touched on some previously, but I would like to go through the claim made by the member for Braitling about a missing $200m, and I will answer the question …
Mr Giles: More of a question than a claim.
Dr BURNS: The question is quite easy to answer, member for Braitling. Turning to the MOU, under 2 and 3 it talks about existing commitments of $279.2m and new funds of $513.8m. Are we agreed so far, member for Braitling?
Mr Giles: Can you repeat that?
Dr BURNS: I am reading from the MOU. Under 2 it says: ‘Included within the total funding of $793m is $279.2m in existing commitments’. It goes through a list of what the $279.2m comprises. Under 3 it says: ‘Included within the total commitment of $793m is $513.8m in new funds which are allocated according to what follows below’. You have two components of $793m; $279.2m in existing commitments and $513.8m in new commitments. Not all that money is dedicated to SIHIP; some is dedicated to other programs within that $793m. That is very important to understand.
I will detail the amounts of money. In relation to SIHIP - you will see it in the MOU - $414.2m is designated as new constructions, repairs and upgrades - that is money for construction. In regard to some of the existing funding under the $793m, we have the strategic intervention agreement of $93.5m, which you will see under 2 in the MOU. You will also see the Tennant Creek town camp initiative at $20m, making a total of $527.7m.
The Northern Territory government put in $100m, which was not part of the $793m. That brings us to $627.7m, and there was a top-up of $45m by the Commonwealth. That $45m included $25m for projects in Nguiu, Groote Eylandt and Tennant Creek, and $20m for six communities in the southern shires. You have $627.7m plus the $45m which brings it up to the $672m.
I am more than happy to discuss it with you outside this forum. There is no missing $200m. All the money is accounted for. All the $793m, as part of the MOU, is being expended within Indigenous affairs, however, the specific amount within the agreement, the MOU, for SIHIP as outlined - and no doubt you will go through what I have said on the Parliamentary Record. I listened carefully to what you said and I went through the briefing from the department. I even constructed my own Excel spreadsheet to ensure it all added up, and I am sure you will do exactly the same.
Turning back to the report of the CTC, one of the recommendations was about refurbishments. Let me turn to recommendation 10:
That is what we have endeavoured to do with our refurbishments. I know there have been disappointments in some communities, and issues raised, however, the basic focus of the refurbishments is around those very things named in Recommendation 10.
I am also on the public record saying I want to investigate the ongoing operations of SIHIP and the refurbishments; other ways the refurbishment can be delivered utilising more local capacity. On Groote Eylandt we have GEBIE taking on responsibilities and working with the alliance on the refurbishment. On Nguiu we have exactly the same thing. I know there are other shires and entities throughout the Territory with the capacity to start this work. That is where I want to go. It is a good idea, and there are many people thinking the same way. At Wadeye, it is the next step as well.
We are at the end of an election and much depends on who is the winner come Saturday night. We will not know on Saturday night. I will endeavour to work with whoever is minister post-election to move this program along. It has had its difficulties; there is no doubt about that. It has been the subject of review; we have debated the Auditor-General’s review. There was an earlier review which went to the scope of the works, and there is an Australian government auditor’s review at the end of this project. There will be ongoing reviews into SIHIP.
The reports I am receiving in relation to SIHIP are praise around both the new houses and the rebuilt houses. Of those new and rebuilt houses I have inspected, as the member for Nelson said, I would have no hesitation living in them. They are very nice houses and a credit to the contractors who have turned them out.
Instead of refurbishments we could be doing rebuilds, or new houses. At an average of $75 000 for a refurbishment, with an average of $450 000 for a new house, for every six refurbishments you can have a new house. One approach could be instead of the example of Santa Teresa, where there are approximately 70 refurbishments, you could say: ‘We are not going to do that; we are only going to have 12 new houses’. It is a very difficult decision and you are never going to please everyone. This program is an important step in addressing some of the housing issues in remote Indigenous communities in the Territory which needs a sustained effort over many decades, not just over 10 years.
Recommendation 11 is the mea culpa recommendation:
I am on the public record agreeing with the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s report; this program got off to a very bad start for a whole range of reasons. It is not really suitable for me to say much more. Members opposite might want to continue to whip me over this, but I acknowledge there have been issues and challenges, and mistakes have been made. The public servants working on this program have done so in good faith. It is an enormous project, and an enormous logistical challenge. I commend them; they are taking the advice of the Auditor-General to rectify and build their systems. The Auditor-General acknowledged they had made progress and that needs to continue.
Recommendation 12:
My advice, which is in line with the comment, is the Building Act applies to declared areas of the Northern Territory, and declared building areas cover larger urban and some rural localities. As a former Planning minister, I had the debate when I introduced some of those certification rules. They generally exclude industry-owned mining towns, Aboriginal communities and pastoral leases.
Under the private building certification regime, the provision of certification services is at the sole discretion of private building certifiers operating in the Territory. In accordance with the requirements of the Building Act where SIHIP is constructing houses in declared building areas, they are obtaining building permits and, outside declared building areas, certification of houses is required as if they were in declared building areas.
There is a number of quality assurance measures built into the alliance contracting methodology, design processes, and construction and handover processes. That does not mean I am not interested if parliamentary colleagues, members of the public, or local shires have issues they want to raise regarding quality and building. I will follow up any concerns, and am very open to what people tell me about SIHIP. That is all I can say, as minister.
All standard certificates must be presented at handover to Territory Housing asset managers, who also have a responsibility to ensure works being handed over are of an appropriate standard.
To supplement quality monitoring for the program, a new independent quality assurance team is being established to inspect and assess all new houses and refurbishments delivered under SIHIP. This illustrates there are things within the system to address issues. However, we can always do better; and I am open to constructive suggestions about ensuring quality in this program.
Recommendation 13:
We note that aspect of the report. Accounts are being finalised with Earth Connect Alliance. There will be no monies paid to Earth Connect as a result of ending the alliance. There is no payout money: ‘We will pay you X so you go quietly’ …
Mr Elferink: How do you know that when it is still under negotiation?
Dr BURNS: I am telling you, member for Port Darwin, there is no payout in that respect. There is a settlement of accounts for the agreed work done; a settlement of materials from Earth Connect. That is a commercial negotiation happening at present between the government and Earth Connect. At this stage those negotiations are commercial-in-confidence; we will come to an equitable arrangement with Earth Connect. The Auditor-General commented on the appropriateness of them exiting the alliance and the whole project. I have been to Groote Eylandt and inspected some of the works there; I will leave my comments on that to another day.
Recommendation 14:
Any additional costs necessary to mobilise Territory Alliance to complete Earth Connect Alliance work will be met. This will ensure there is no impact on commitments made to any community where works are transitioning from Earth Connect to Territory Alliance. I commend Territory Alliance; they have stepped into the breach. They are a very capable Territory company.
We have targets in SIHIP; by the end of this calendar year we are looking to complete 150 new houses and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds. At Nguiu, 99 new homes are to be built under SIHIP by Territory Alliance. So far, 19 are completed, with another three under way. The Tiwi Islands are also benefiting from 69 rebuilt and refurbished homes, with work under away on another 19 …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it is now 5.30 pm and, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended. General Business now has precedence over Government Business until 9 pm. You can continue with your remarks on the next sitting day.
Debate suspended.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, we know people rely on their cars for their income, getting to and from work, taking the kids to school and sport, and in our remote areas, a family’s car is their lifeline in times of an emergency. A car is not just an ordinary item.
At the outset I have to acknowledge my - and many thoughts were turned in this direction at a recent horrific tragedy in Leanyer. It has caused a reassessment of the crime of arson, particularly the torching of vehicles. It is time for a reassessment. We are, sadly, seeing more and more cars stolen from work or homes, being taken for a joyride and then set on fire in the scrub. I am sure if we drive around, we see evidence of this, often after the keys are stolen from inside the building, or the cars are set on fire as people are asleep, or at boat ramps when people are out fishing and leave their vehicles behind. What a terrible end to a fishing trip, to find your vehicle burnt at the boat ramp. I do not regard the destruction of vehicles by deliberate fire as ordinary arson.
In the 2008-09 annual report there are 209 incidences of vehicle fires compared to 192 structural fires, 198 smoke complaints, and, of course, grass fires were the most common, with 1545 incidences.
Vehicle fires have increased by 64% since 2001-02. This is a significant increase and, year-on-year incidences of vehicle fires: 2008-09 – 184; slightly down in 2007-08 – 150; up slightly 2006-07 to 168, down again slightly 2005-06 to 149; then down again 2004-05. Going back, 2003-04 it is 126, slightly up again; 2002-03 - 104, which is down; and, 2001-02 - 112. The increase from 2001-02 from 112 to 2008-09 to 184 is a significant increase; a 64% increase.
Police reported that, at 22 May this year, 23 stolen cars had been torched in the Darwin region, equivalent to almost one in every 10 days. I recall there have been at least eight since then, and it appears to be getting out of control. It certainly is a threat to any perceptions of safety in the Territory.
Two vehicles were set on fire at the Hibiscus Shopping Centre in Leanyer on 13 July this year, and a car and boat set on fire, also in Leanyer. As the fire department was extinguishing the fires at the Hibiscus Shopping Centre, they received a call to attend a nearby townhouse. Another vehicle had been torched, spreading to a neighbouring residence, resulting in the tragic death of eight-year-old Nicholas Middis, and injury to his mother, who was lucky to survive burns to 40% of her body.
Madam Speaker, arson is no ordinary crime; it is a truly cowardly and hideous act.
Forensic and clinical physiologist, Dr Rebecca Doley, was quoted in the NT News describing serial arsonists as being conscious of the consequences of their actions but incapable of regret. I quote from Dr Doley:
Unfortunately, the disturbing trend is continuing.
On 22 July, a jeep was set on fire in a car park under a residential building at Tipperary Waters, with another vehicle doused in flammable liquid in preparation of being torched. This was in a car park underneath a building containing many residential units which, considering the fire occurred around 3 am, were full of sleeping people. If it were not for the quick thinking and courage of individuals in putting out the fire, many more cars could have caught fire posing a significant risk for the occupants of that building. Had the fire spread to other vehicles or indeed the building, the results would have been truly disastrous, echoing the observations and analysis and conclusions of Dr Doley. Those who light such fires seem to have no regard for the consequences that may result in tragedy to others.
The interesting thing is this fire occurred only six weeks after the spate of vehicle fires in Leanyer which culminated in the tragic death of Nicholas Middis, giving further evidence to the observations of Dr Doley. It was everywhere; we all felt it as a community, yet there are those among us who have no concern and would not mind lighting a fire again.
Police believe the main reason for vehicle fires is to conceal forensic evidence of another crime, DNA, fingerprints, etcetera. My view, and the view of the opposition, is whether it be the simple theft of that vehicle, its contents, or the use of the vehicle in another crime, the reason I decided to specify trailers attached to a motor vehicle be included in this provision is because last year cars on a trailer attached to a prime mover parked at a rest stop near Ti Tree roadhouse were set on fire as the driver was asleep in the cab. An estimated $600 000 damage was done to the cars and the trailer. Thankfully, the driver was able to unhitch the prime mover from the trailer.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to consider this amendment and provide it with support so we can ensure the nature of this crime is appropriately addressed with legislation, and a response from our community.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That, in light of the two fatal crashes at Coolalinga over the last 12 months involving road trains and the possibility of more heavy vehicle traffic movements in the Darwin region if the construction of an LNG plant at Blaydin Point goes ahead:
The reason I have brought this forward is not to make a comment on the recent accident at Coolalinga; that will be a matter for the Coroner. My discussions today are not focused on that incident. I am highlighting the fact there have been two crashes at that intersection. To put it in perspective, there have been two losses of very heavy loads on the Arnhem Highway which, luckily, did not cause any injuries. They were road trains fully loaded with boulders going to the port to cover the ConocoPhillips pipeline. Members might also remember there was an accident at BP Palms not so long ago, where a truck ran into the back of a bus, hit another bus, and quite a number of young people were injured.
I thought this would be an appropriate time to do something, considering there is a large increase in traffic in the rural and Palmerston areas which moves back and forwards every day, whether for business, industry or local shopping.
I also need to say something about the trucking industry. The trucking industry has, for many years, been the backbone of the Territory economy. It has delivered goods and services from all parts of the Territory, on all road conditions, and in all sorts of weather. I am a great supporter of the trucking industry, believe it or not. I have been a small truck driver with a HR licence and carted materials and goods to Daly River for quite a number of years. I do not regard myself as a road train driver. I travelled the Daly River road long enough to know every bend, every pothole and every flooded river and creek. I knew where the road was in good condition, and in bad condition. I have travelled many kilometres behind a truck and realise you have to pay attention, even in smaller trucks, especially when you have a load on because it is different to driving a small vehicle.
A number of issues I raise today would be relevant for a task force to look at. Heavy truck movements in the rural area would be one, especially as I said when we were debating the mining bill, most of the gravel and sand for Darwin comes from the rural area. Most of our crushed rock comes from Batchelor or Acacia, and some would come from Mt Bundy, on the Arnhem Highway. You have all this within 100 km of Darwin. A large number of trucks provide the raw material needed to make Darwin grow, and we need to focus on that.
Other trucking movements involve the cattle industry; triples are vitally important to bringing large numbers of cattle into Darwin, and we also have general freight. The amount of freight coming by road is substantial. Anyone trying to get to Darwin on a Sunday night knows there are many trucks on the road because they are all getting ready to unload on Monday. Regardless of rail, we still have many trucks on the road.
There are breakdowns in the types of freight. I am not here to argue the case against triples; some people might think I have brought this forward because it is a good idea to break the big trucks up. I have not said that. We need to discuss these issues, look at the pros and cons, and have a reasonable debate. We need to look to the future, especially the future growth of the Darwin regional area, which means more traffic, more road use, more heavy loads, and more vehicles travelling those roads. I need to ensure this is kept in perspective.
We also need information about total traffic movements. I have received figures today on total traffic movement in the rural area. It is not broken up into trucks; it is a general traffic count which gives an idea of traffic movements in the area. On the Stuart Highway, for instance, 100 m north of Henning Road - and Henning Road is Coolalinga - the traffic movements in 2008, both ways, was 14 721 vehicles a day. A substantial number of vehicles are using that road. It is less on the Stuart Highway because more traffic uses it. It was 5874 vehicles a day, taken in 2008. That is using the counts one can receive from the count stations you see on the road.
An interesting one is an area close to me, Howard Springs Road, which is one of the major roads for the removal of gravel and sand. Most sand would come from that section, although some comes from Trippe Road. The amount of traffic coming out of Howard Springs Road is 6537 vehicles per day, which is more than the Arnhem Highway. It is a pretty narrow road and there is a substantial number of people who live on that road at Howard River Park. I should note, minister, I have written to the government a number of times suggesting the speed limit near that residential area be reduced because of the number of cars turning left and right. They are at risk because of the speed at which trucks can travel in that area. It is a 100 km/h road and there are no slip lanes. I make that as an aside; it is not necessarily part of this debate today, although it could be included in a task force forum.
We need to look at the different routes heavy vehicles can use to bring their materials into Darwin. There has been some discussion about INPEX, which was looking at over 165 trucks a day to bring in the loads for the Blaydin Point development. They will bring in gravel and rocks for the port they are building. Even though in their EIS they mention Lambrick Avenue, road trains are not permitted; there are signs up before you get there. The alternative to Lambrick Avenue would be Jenkins Road, which is part sealed and part gravel, although I believe the government has money set aside for upgrading. That is fine; that will take materials to that point.
The difficulty ConocoPhillips will have is taking boulders to the port because they have to cover their pipeline coming in from Western Australia. There will be a large movement of trucks with boulders coming in from Mt Bundy.
As well as that, you have cattle. Whilst we have a port and live cattle, they have to be connected. It would not be feasible to break up triples with cattle on them. You do not want to add costs to the pastoral industry, and it can create complications when dealing with live animals. What do you do with the third trailer? You have to park it, unload the cattle, ensure they are fed and watered while you take the two trailers in, or you have to have a truck waiting, hook that on and go to the port. This is an issue we need to look at carefully; that we do not make certain industries unprofitable because it is cheaper to put more cows on one truck; the same with the boulders, the gravel and the sand. If you can cart more in, in one go, it keeps the cost down.
The other issue would be expansion of the Port of Darwin. The only way to do that is with fill. The fill is likely to come from the rural area. Again, a large number of trucks will be required to take material to the port. Those are the areas we need to look at.
There is the important issue of speed. The speed limit in from the Arnhem Highway is 100 km/h, with breaks at Coolalinga for a short distance of 80 km/h. It was 100 km/h all the way to Pinelands, however, the flyover has changed that. It is 100 km/h again after Pinelands; we have a range of speed limits. My understanding is these trucks can all run at that speed. The issue which needs discussing is an appropriate speed for that sized truck in a built-up area. Is 100 km/h appropriate for triples, doubles, and large cement trucks? A person hit by a cement truck or a triple would not have any idea what hit them; it would still be a solid load and cause death or serious injury. The discussion should not only be based on whether it is a triple or a double, it should be its weight - what it is carting. If it was a load of mattresses it might not be so bad; if it is a lot of boulders it is a different kettle of fish.
The speed these vehicles can travel in built-up areas should be open for discussion. I have said publicly that 80 km/h should be the maximum in built-up areas. We need to talk to the trucking industry, road safety people, and a range of people. It might be that places like Coolalinga have a 60 km/h speed limit. It is regarded as a township. You do not drive trucks through Katherine at 80 km/h; you drive through at 50 km/h. You do not drive through Mataranka at 80 km/h; you drive through at 60 km/h. It might be annoying to people but the reality is Coolalinga is a district centre which is only going to get bigger because there is a shopping centre on the other side. Some thought needs to be given to that.
The other area is licensing. I looked at the chart and at my licence; I cannot drive triples or doubles, I need another licence. The question asked is: is there sufficient training for people driving the bigger trucks, the triples? Is there a requirement to prove you have driven a smaller truck long enough to have knowledge of driving a big truck? I have been told if you can get a HR licence - and I will stand corrected on this, minister - hold that licence for 12 months, not drive a vehicle in that time, do whatever is required to drive a triple, and away you go. There needs to be a licensing system which looks at the maturity of the driver; that is an important area.
There could be issues regarding how well trucks are maintained. On the Australian Trucking Association website mention is made of TruckSafe. It covers not only maintenance but also driver health. This is an industry-based program which could be promoted more in the Northern Territory. I will read what it says at the beginning:
3. workplace and driver health; and
4. training.
This is something we need to promote in the industry. If we promoted the TruckSafe logo and said to people: ‘Put this on your truck in a prominent place; sell yourself as an accredited trucking company, based on industry standards’, it would be a good thing to do. It says:
They have an implementation kit which provides templates and check lists for each standard. It talks about:
This is one of the key things to look at in the trucking industry. It seems the industry is aware there can be problems and is doing the right thing; promoting a TruckSafe system to help the industry. That could be focused on and emphasised at this forum. If people want to access that website it is worth reading.
Another area is road design. We have a number of intersections on the approach to Darwin: the Arnhem Highway has orange flashing lights; Henning Road/Girraween Road/Stuart Highway intersection has flashing lights; Lambrick Avenue/Howard Springs Road/Stuart Highway has flashing lights; Temple Terrace/Stuart Highway has flashing lights; Deviney Road/Stuart Highway intersection has flashing lights, one side of McMillans Road/Stuart Highway, and also the Berrimah Road crossroads on the Stuart Highway. I have been told by the department that they are designed for trucks not cars. They were put there to give trucks time to stop before they approached the intersections.
It has been suggested there have only been a couple of accidents. I quoted more than two; I know of at least five, and not always at intersections. I cannot recall road train accidents at intersections except the Coolalinga one, and there may be other reasons. It seems strange you have 100 km/h intersections at Arnhem Highway, Temple Terrace, Howard Springs and McMillans Road, yet I do not recall accidents there. I say that with caution, because even though one could argue there have only been a very small percentage of accidents there, we are going to have more traffic.
Should we err on the side of being proactive and cautious and ensure we reduce risks because we are going to have more heavy trucks on the road? If we can develop systems which are not detrimental to the trucking industry and increase the safety side of the transport of these goods, that is what we should be aiming for.
We have good roads. Two roads of a lower standard would be the Arnhem Highway and Howard Springs Road. The Arnhem Highway takes a pounding, and members discussed it recently. It is not to the same standard as the Stuart Highway. It is rough and tumble in places. The Howard Springs Road is a reasonably good two-lane road but not to the standard of the Stuart Highway. It carries much traffic to and from the rural area, and some very big trucks deliver sand and gravel from that area.
There may be an aspect of road design to look at which could be part of the forum: is the road design correct?
Some say the Coolalinga intersection is on a dog leg and needs to be investigated. I have looked at it and have my opinion. I am reluctant to comment on that intersection because the Coroner will bring out a report on it. It has gone from a T-intersection to a crossroad; it has changed and is certainly a busy intersection. I do not have the numbers but Girraween Road is the busiest road in Litchfield Shire taking up to 8000 vehicles a day. Waiting on a road which feeds into Girraween Road you would think you were in the city. Around 7 am and 8 am much traffic uses that road, and it all meets at the Coolalinga intersection.
I would like to know, minister, do we have ‘scalies’? I am not trying to put ‘scalies’ down, however, travelling around my electorate I do not see ‘scalies’ on the road very often. Is there a role to play? You do not want all stick; you want some carrot, which is why I say promote TruckSafe; it is a good thing.
People in TruckSafe may have a reduction in their registration. ‘If you are accredited under this scheme, we give you 10% off your registration. Encourage the trucking industry. The stick side might be: ‘We will check if your lights are working; your brakes are working’. I travelled past a truck on the Stuart Highway recently which was purple from top to bottom. I do not know what they had been unloading, but if you could see the tail lights working, you were doing well. If he needed headlights, you would be doing well to see those. That truck driver needed to clean the tail lights because it was difficult to see whether it had brakes or indicators working.
Is there a presence of ‘scalies’ any more? I remember cars pulling up trucks, checking them, ensuring the tyres had plenty of tread. With modern equipment today you can weigh a truck on the spot; you do not have to pull them up at a weighbridge.
Covered loads have been an issue for people. If you are behind a sand truck, you have a sandblasted bonnet on your car. Trucks are a little more responsible these days in covering loads, however, it can be a problem if you are travelling behind one and they have not been watered down or covered. It is something which needs looking at.
Who is responsible for the enforcement of rules and safety? The NTG website says the Department of Lands and Planning administers the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme in the NT for Territory-based heavy vehicle operations through its Accreditation and Audit Unit. I ask the minister: what do they do in relation to that? I do not know much about it. Minister, you issued a media release last year about the National Remote Areas Consultative Group. You said:
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is under the National Transport Commission. It says:
Where is that at in relation to the bigger picture of transport in the Northern Territory?
The last area I want to mention is Defence, which carries big loads. I have not seen any triples with Defence. An Abrams tank weighs about 64 tonnes. I realise that is not axle load; it is spread out. We would need to include Defence in any discussions because they have not only heavy loads, sometimes they have many loads. Near Howard Springs you will see convoys of heavy vehicles moving out to Defence exercises at Mt Bundy or further south. They need to be included.
I put local government in the discussion because it takes much wear and tear from heavy industry. Some roads in the rural area are council roads and they need to be part of the equation when discussing these matters.
Of course, you must have the NT Trucking Association; they are the spokesmen for the trucking industry in the Northern Territory. The mining and pastoral industries must be included, also general freight companies. They should all be represented because transport of these goods is important for the welfare and economy of the Northern Territory.
Lastly, if we are to have a task force or forum - minister, if the government is happy to have a forum I am not going to die on the stake for the wording. I would be very supportive of any review of heavy vehicle movements, and want to ensure the public is involved. They are road users as well; they would like to comment on these matters and should be involved in any task force or forum.
The Coroner is looking into the case at Coolalinga. It may be wise, if this motion is successful, to wait until the Coroner releases his findings so there is no chance of causing legal complications.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I encourage the government to consider having this forum; it is important to the safety of not only road users, also truck users, and to keep the industry healthy and strong in the Northern Territory, as it should be.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for putting this motion forward today. We will be supporting this motion.
I often meet with representatives from trucking and logistics industries, and the establishment of a task force or reference group is timely. We are on the brink of a renewed boost in our development, and the group will be able to review opportunities for road safety improvements along our main heavy vehicle access routes in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas.
I see the group as a minimum look to how we best maintain our existing heavy vehicle productivity, while looking at improving safety on Territory roads. We need to work on the makeup of the group and look closely at each stakeholder identified by the member for Nelson. I am supportive of engaging each of those stakeholder groups as part of the review, and we need to seek advice from transport professionals about which skills and sectors need to be represented on the group.
At this point, I acknowledge our very hard-working public servants, our Northern Territory Police Force and the Territory Insurance Office. All have a vested interest in and work professionally towards improved road safety outcomes for all Territorians. My support this afternoon also compliments these existing organisations or agencies, and the experts who work very hard delivering road safety outcomes.
The Department of Lands and Planning has care and control over the main arterial roads in the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson raised some very important points. To put it into perspective of where we will be going with this task force in relation to a national heavy vehicle driver’s licence, it is exactly that; a national licence and we would need to consider that in a national context.
Members will be aware the Stuart Highway northwards from the Cox Peninsula Road intersection is a multi-lane route with two lanes in each direction. There are traffic signals installed at most major junctions, with active advanced warning signs at multiple sites. There are also speed and red light cameras installed at some sites. There are multiple speed zones, and mixes of open road and built-up areas. Speed limits are based on types of development adjacent to the road, and the need to maintain the function of our road - a very important agenda item for a task force as proposed by the member for Nelson.
Heavy vehicles in the Territory are restricted to a maximum speed of 100 km/h. The Stuart Highway is obviously the Territory’s main transport corridor. Approximately 17 500 vehicles travel from the rural area to Darwin and Palmerston daily, on average. Of these, 1232, or 7% are heavy vehicles, with approximately 200, or 1% of those vehicles being multi-combination heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicles account for less than 2% of accidents on NT roads.
The Northern Territory government is planning for the expected significant increase of heavy vehicle traffic, with the full utilisation of the new port facilities and completion of the rail link. A great example of this is the Tiger Brennan Drive project; the most significant road project in the Territory’s history, in full swing, with Stage 2 on track for completion this year.
Traffic modelling has estimated when the population of Darwin and Palmerston reaches 120 000 and 200 000 respectively, the traffic volumes along Berrimah Road will be in the order of 8500 and 20 000 vehicles per day respectively. It is also expected a high proportion of traffic to and from the port will be heavy vehicles, approximately 25%.
The Tiger Brennan Drive link and duplication of Berrimah Road are critical to the economy and will make a substantial contribution to the road arterial network. Works are now under way to realign Tivendale Road to improve road safety, reduce the number of rail crossings, and improve heavy vehicle access to the industrial areas along Wishart Road. This work is progressing well, and was a key part of our bid for strategic investment into our export industries. The Tiger Brennan project will provide safe and efficient freight access in the region and reduce problems which may be encountered as urban development proceeds.
The inclusion of a rail overpass as part of Stage 3 of the Tiger Brennan Drive project, which accommodates dual rail tracks, will eliminate delays caused by trains using the East Arm port rail line. The project extends the AusLink corridor to Darwin’s East Arm Port, removing possible freight congestion points and improving safety. The Northern Territory government engages with heavy vehicle industry on a regular basis, and I am confident we will work cooperatively in reviewing the heavy vehicle access routes and reach agreeable positions on any future decisions to improve road safety.
The task force, or group, needs to be established with detailed terms of reference and a start and finish date. The terms of reference should help guide the considerations of the group, and setting some time frames will help drive the outcomes.
I propose the member for Nelson consider preparing the first draft of the terms of reference for discussion, and we meet in the near future to formalise the terms. Member for Nelson, we could consider commencing the task force once the Coroner has handed down his findings in the most recent fatality.
The other issue is the reporting framework, and I propose the group be chaired by the Executive Director of Transport, Ms Marj Morrissey. I suggest we consider commencing the group as mentioned, and have it run for approximately six months, providing its final report by 1 April 2011.
In supporting this motion, I look forward to putting the group together and working with industry on ensuring our heavy vehicle industry remains competitive and road safety issues are considered and debated.
In response to the member for Nelson’s concerns about transport inspectors, in my extensive periods spent on the road I still see ‘scalies’, and our transport inspectors are based in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. They do a great job protecting the road asset and enforcing road safety requirements, and I am very happy to share any statistics. However, the task force would be the appropriate body to research those statistics and make those recommendations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in summary, I support establishing a task force, a reference group, or body to review opportunities for road safety improvements along our main heavy vehicle access routes into Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. I look forward to progressing this positive bipartisan initiative. I support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is good to be discussing something important. Last week parliament was very poor, and I have been horrified by some of the goings on in the Chamber over the last few days. It is good to see something important come up. I have some comments, member for Nelson, and I will attempt to reserve any political smart comments I have, although I may venture that way.
I reflect your comments, member for Nelson; the two fatal crashes at Coolalinga were devastating, and it is time to reflect on traffic conditions and circumstances in such locations. I note you have proposed a task force as part of this motion. Some thoughts which immediately spring to mind are: here we go; Labor all over again, review, review, review and no work when it should be doing things.
I note Ernie is in the advisor’s box. We hold confidence in the officials of the department of Transport to do their jobs and ensure the roads are up to speed and regulations are in place which ensure the best safety we can on our roads. You have put on this task force people who, clearly, make sense to be part of any task force you might form, such as the Trucking Association, the department, pastoral industry, freight, and so forth. I wonder why we need to put a task force together as I imagine the department of Transport spends some time consulting with these bodies already.
The intersections, the greater Darwin area, the transport industry, the doubles and triples and the things you spoke about, I hope the department of Transport is continually working with those stakeholders to ensure our roads are in the best state they can be. I worry that what we will see at the end of the task force is a further restrictive model of transport between Darwin and the rural sector with increased travel times from places like Humpty Doo to Darwin. That is a serious concern.
Both you and the minister spoke about the build-up of traffic at places like Coolalinga. That is a fair point; we need to continue looking at these things. This is something the task force can look at; vehicle movements of all sizes and shapes in the future and how we plan for that. Sometimes in places like Coolalinga we have a road set to speed, we build all around it, slow everyone down and create traffic problems for people travelling from the rural area to Darwin every day for work. Perhaps we should be developing away from the main arterial roads because, in the future, we will attempt to build a freeway around the main urban centre we have just built. It will be built around the road to decrease traffic times.
You spoke of the speed of trucks in areas such as approaching Pinelands and the new flyover; it is quite reasonable for the task force to look at that. I am a proponent of open speed limits. You drive through parts of the Territory where you believe there should not be a speed limit, however, in other parts, such as areas you have mentioned, you think: a truck should not be driving through here at 100 km/h. That is a good area to look at.
The Country Liberals will be supporting this motion. I note you do not have a time frame on the task force, so I am unsure when it will report. I hope this is not a forever thing. We heard ads during the last federal election, and this one, about review, review, review, review. I hope this does not continue forever-and-a-day. This is something we need to fix now.
I was going to move an amendment asking for the department of Transport to do an immediate review of major intersections within the greater Darwin region and report back to parliament in a month or two with any concerns. Any urgent matters identified would be fixed under the auspices of the Minister for Transport. I will not do that now, although that is a serious concern I have with this task force; people may die at these intersections because we have procrastinated for too long thinking about a task force and spending money getting these people together. Yes, they are stakeholders and I know the Transport department consults with stakeholders; I know the minister meets with them. I do not think we need to go over the top with this; it needs to be thorough and as fast as possible.
We need to ensure our roads are safe, give greater consideration to planning when designing roads, and consider transport needs of people moving between those areas. If you think there is trouble now for people moving from the rural area into Darwin to work, if we slow traffic down and put more lights in it will be worse for people; they will become more frustrated which impacts on their lifestyle and their sense of home environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go any further; I do not think I need to. We will support this, member for Nelson, and thank you for bringing it on.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague’s comments and welcome the motion from the member for Nelson regarding a task force. I have several general comments.
I do not want to take anything away from the accidents; they are tragic and there has been loss of life. However, there has been loss of life at other major intersections along the Stuart Highway, notably the Arnhem Highway intersection. In line with some of the amendments we were planning to bring forward, I was going to suggest we need to look at the traffic flow and road safety systems for the greater Darwin rural area down to Adelaide River, including the Batchelor area, because there are some major intersections coming onto the Stuart Highway.
I also ask the government, if they are agreeing to this motion, to seriously look at the major arterial roads coming onto the Stuart Highway in the rural area, notably Virginia Road and Bees Creek Road. With the realignment of Girraween Road into the Henning Road intersection, in particular, traffic flow has changed. I can see it because my office is there, and we have stood on the side of the road watching the traffic flow. It has changed so large blocks of cars go through Coolalinga and down past the Virginia turn-off and up towards the 15 Mile hill. The intersection at Virginia is difficult and unsafe. I know government has been petitioned before about slipways. I understand it would be expensive to put a slipway in because it is quite a drop-off from the highway at the Virginia Road intersection. However, I ask the terms of reference of this task force include looking at slipways from Virginia Road to the Stuart Highway and Bees Creek Road.
I suggest Bees Creek Road because the two major schools are there, and the childcare centre. In the early morning, you have, heaven forbid, ‘peak hour traffic’ coming onto the Stuart Highway. You also have people accessing Freds Pass Road - an enormous amount of traffic. There have been crashes at that intersection but no fatalities. If it is going to be a comprehensive review of our traffic flow, you need to consider these areas, plus the Arnhem Highway intersection, because that is a very busy intersection.
There is no doubt traffic flow is increasing because more people are moving to the rural area with each development. They invariably have two, three, or four cars per property. They usually travel down the Stuart Highway. The minister has relayed the figures; there are probably even more with the activity around our East Arm port. Even today, the announcement of a marine supply base will mean much development; many trucks are going to come from the rural area into East Arm for whatever reason, so we need to look carefully at how that traffic flow will be managed.
There has been much comment on the recent accidents at Coolalinga but people tend to look at what has happened after the event. Somehow, this task force needs to look at other aspects which are difficult to analyse and review; that is, the behavioural management aspect. Sadly, there is a view in the community - and I am trying to enlighten people - a green light does not mean it is safe; a green light means it is your turn to go. We have all grown up with this attitude that, because it is our green light, it is our turn to go, regardless.
I would like to see, as part of the work of the task force, some consideration of how we change people’s attitudes to get a cultural shift in how we go about our movements on roads, because we are all bad at it - let us be honest, we are all bad at it. We have all done something wrong over time; we have all received tickets in some shape or form.
That goes to my last point - and I am not 100% sure if the Road Safety Council still exists - is there going to be a relationship between this group and the Road Safety Council. If the Road Safety Council does not exist – and I believe it should - in light of the growth of Darwin and the greater rural area, and the advent of Weddell, we need to reinvigorate the Road Safety Council and charge them with this kind of task because this would sit squarely within a road safety council’s parameters. If it still exists that is good. I would like to know the relationship between this task force and the Road Safety Council.
In the course of the work of this task force, which presumably will be in a finite time frame, they will call for presentations, representations, groups like the pedestrian council and like-minded organisations. The representative bodies could easily be broken down into key industry groups. You would pick up all the freight companies; you would go to the Australian Trucking Association, Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council, and the Cattlemen’s Association. You would probably get them all, along with local government, which has a big part to play in roads.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they are my comments at this point. I hope the government takes them on board so we can work towards making that big chunk from Berrimah lights down to Adelaide River, and the main roads to and from, a better place. It will need some funding commitment by government, particularly towards slipways. Perhaps government is looking at these things; however, they need to look more carefully, bring them up the agenda and commit some real funds so we can access the main highway in a safer way, particularly at peak times.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank those people who have commented on this motion; it has made me think. The member for Braitling had a few ideas. But he stated the obvious; naturally the department has done much work. I have seen their maps and their plans. We have had a few discussions about the design of anything from the Noonamah car park to the service roads in Coolalinga. That is part of my job, and the job the department does. They do much work on this, and we may be able to shorten that because the member for Braitling made some useful comments. It would be good if we can get this task force together quickly, discuss these issues based on the knowledge already out there, and come up with solutions before 1 April. We will be kicking ourselves if there is another accident and we have not acted quickly.
I thank you, minister, for government support. I would be very happy to sit down after the sittings and work out a terms of reference. I would want some help from the experts. I do not regard myself as an expert when putting this up; I regard myself as a road user who has lived in the rural area for a long time. I am an average person who has concerns. I will rely on experts for their opinions, their input, and that is where I will be looking for the good ideas.
Let us not leave out the public. The public uses roads too and we should allow for public submissions. There are plenty of retired people out there who might have some good ideas.
The member for Braitling mentioned shops along Coolalinga. If I had half-an-hour I would explain why that happened. This case is a special story, however, it is not perfect. The circumstances at the time Coolalinga was developed related to a dispute because some who lived there felt it was unfair of the government to move existing commercial people to Freds Pass District Centre. A number of people had businesses there - Len Cant ran a caravan park, Chris Patsalou ran the stock feed, Stavri might have had some vegies; that was the limit.
The government wanted to develop a district centre at Freds Pass near the Christian school. There was much discussion and the government decided it would limit the amount of development at Coolalinga. That limitation still exists. It is now being filled in with shopping centres, some fast food suppliers are going into the area, and naturally the amount of traffic has increased. It is a good point, and I have no doubt there will be another set of traffic lights at Coolalinga one day to manage the service roads on either sides to ensure safety.
Not wanting to get stuck behind vehicles and going through heaps of traffic lights is another good point. We need to work out ways of ensuring traffic lights are coordinated for traffic flow. It may be the speed limit for vehicles stays the same; it may be simply to slow the bigger trucks down. Flow of traffic is important, not always the speed. As long as vehicles keep moving people are usually happy.
It raises the point of the amount of traffic on the roads and more emphasis on public transport. It is always a hot potato; I say rail, the department says buses. I say rail; they say: ‘No, no, no, buses’. At least the government is being proactive. Two ‘park and ride’ areas are being established, hopefully this financial year - one at Coolalinga and one at Humpty Doo. I hope there are more. If it is promoted and we can get more cars off the road, that is a positive thing. The amount of traffic going into Darwin, when you join the two highways together and Howard Springs, is around 16 000 to 18 000 car movements there and back per day. If we can keep that limited by offsetting the number of users on the road – have good public transport, express buses - that is a good thing as well.
The member for Goyder raised several issues which have been around for some time; a slip lane at Virginia and one at Bees Creek. The task force could look at the intersection. I imagine the department has done much of that work; they do the slip lanes. On the Arnhem Highway, the slip lane on the left into Produce Road - there has been a redevelopment of Produce Road because there was a fatality there several years ago. Lights have been put up and the bicycle path has been moved.
There have been changes at Freds Pass Road and the Arnhem Highway at Humpty Doo; there has been a widening of the road for a left-hand turn. That is a very busy intersection and I should not leave that out of the equation. There is an 80 km/h zone through the area near the Humpty Doo shopping centre which is relatively short. It has been suggested the 80 km/h zone should be longer to go past the industrial area at Spencely Road. That could be looked at.
Not only is there heavy traffic but many tourist vehicles use that road - big coaches going to Kakadu. It is a fairly well-used part of the road, not only for through traffic to Kakadu, but people going to the schools. You have the biggest high school in the Territory, and St Francis Assisi School, Humpty Doo Primary, the after school care, an early learning centre, the shopping centre and commercial or light industrial area as well. That area certainly needs looking at. The government must have plans to widen the Arnhem Highway because it has been buying up parcels of land.
The member for Goyder raised the issue of behavioural matters. I am not saying I always drive that way; I was told to drive defensively. If you come to an intersection, be prepared to stop; do not be prepared to race it. You still see, time and time again, the lights are orange and people put their foot down. That is terrible. There was an accident about a year ago on the corner of McMillans Road and the Stuart Highway where a car T-boned another car doing a right-hand turn. It pushed the car up onto the median strip and the passenger was killed instantly. Someone had come through that intersection at very high speed.
We need to educate and remind people through programs similar to the one at the moment about road safety for bicycles. It is a good advertising program. There should be something similar about intersections.
The red light cameras - perhaps the task force could see if there has been a reduction in people being booked at places like Deviney Road, Berrimah Road and Amy Johnson Avenue. Has there been a reduction because people know there is a red light camera and they slow down otherwise they will be fined?
What the member for Goyder said about the Road Safety Council was good. We mention road safety in our motion, which was put in deliberately to look at those types of organisations being involved.
I thank the government and the opposition for supporting this motion. It is a broad motion; I am not the expert. I need advice from the minister, and the minister’s department, on who these people should be. The member for Braitling, or the member for Goyder, was right: we do not need representatives from every trucking company; we need representatives from the association. The trucking association might be sufficient, however, we deal with the cattle industry - the live cattle industry especially. I am not sure if there is a live cattle transport group or whether the cattle industry would want to be involved. I believe there is a live cattle transport group. They need to be involved. We need to keep it a tight group, but we need a group that knows its business, knows the industry, and knows the issues.
I have nominated the department of Transport. I was not trying to put off the Department of Lands and Planning; I become confused as to who is who in the department, between Construction, Transport, and Lands and Planning. It is difficult to know who, but I am sure people in Lands and Planning will be on it as well.
I had forgotten about rail crossings. We have had two road trains take on a train. One was the other side of the Elizabeth River Bridge and one further down the track, both involving heavy trucks. Perhaps because it was not close to a main shopping centre it had its moment and was forgotten. That is an area, minister, we should be looking at.
I thank the minister for his support. I am happy to help work out the draft references, and maybe we can negotiate the amount of time required. I take it from the experts. If this information is already available, let us use it. I do not have time to reinvent the wheel. If people have the information ready, let us go with that. If we can bring it forward, let us do so and come back with good recommendations we can implement if need be.
Minister, I would like to emphasise the TruckSafe program. I discovered it after I put this motion forward. There is a place for promotion within our trucking Industry. If it is possible to promote it by giving the trucking industry discounts on registration or something - if you belong to this we will reduce registration costs - that would be the way to go.
Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers who have supported this motion today.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Greatorex has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, thank goodness for General Business Day is all I can say. We seem to get through some real work in this House. On the Notice Paper for tomorrow there are four items. If it was not for the member for Port Darwin bringing on an MPI, we would probably be out of here by the usual knock-off time these days, about 7 pm to 7.30 pm, so we can all have a long weekend. Thanks to the member for Port Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: The minister has indicated he will not be supporting this bill. To me, it was pretty straightforward, bit of a no-brainer; something the Health Complaints Commissioner has been calling for, for a long time. He thinks, because we have not consulted widely and broadly - which is incorrect according to the minister - this bill deserves to be not supported.
They want to send it back to another committee, a review, whatever it might be, to flesh it out; to have complete unanimous stakeholder agreement on it. Hence, he will not be supporting the bill, despite a call from the Health Complaints Commissioner to implement such a bill. Indeed, it was recommended in the original review. That review was completed in 2003, by the Labor government, and handed to the Health Minister in April 2004 …
Mr Tollner: Who was the Health minister then?
Mr CONLAN: I think it might have been the member for Nightcliff, the member for Johnston …
Mr Tollner: In 2004?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, 2004. I could stand corrected. Nevertheless, I remember the member for Johnston, in his bungled capacity as the former Health minister, say he would look into this. Whether he forgot about looking into it, he was very apathetic about it or ambiguous, as he is with all his duties, he did not get around to it. Perhaps he was just sacked from his job as Health minister before he could.
The recommendation was already there; where that review is, heaven knows. Somewhere on the fifth floor, no doubt, lost in mountains and mountains of good legislation and good reviews …
Mr Tollner: Might find it tucked away in a filing cabinet of the member for Nightcliff.
Mr CONLAN: Perhaps it is. I am sure it is in someone’s filing cabinet.
It is plain and simple: if these recommendations were implemented it would see the end of the culture of cover-up that has been the signature of the Martin/Henderson Labor governments - eight long years of a culture of cover-up. Heaven forbid we see the end of the culture of cover-up.
The former minister for Health, the member for Johnston, was the king of the culture of cover-up. We saw that in his attitude towards his Health portfolio and, indeed, his undoing was the result of his culture of cover-up; that is, failing to provide hospital board reports from our hospitals across the Northern Territory. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There was a litany of failures from the member for Johnston, including his failure to get across his new job as the Leader of Government Business.
There are seven items of business on the government’s Notice Paper, yet we are unable to, in the hours and hours we have dedicated in this Chamber, to get through the government’s business on the Notice Paper. For what reason, I do not know. It must be the lazy, moribund, inept government attitude or, more to the point, the member for Johnston is once again proving he is not up to the job. He has had demotion after demotion after demotion, yet he cannot run the government business agenda; we still have seven items.
The Country Liberals developed this bill, introduced it as a result of comments made by the Territory’s Health and Community Complaints Commissioner in her annual report, and my concern over the government’s blatant apathy in the face of continual systemic failures facing the Northern Territory health system.
Mr Tollner: You have done a very good job.
Mr CONLAN: It is a very good and comprehensive bill, member for Fong Lim. It is an absolute no-brainer. The government will eventually bring in a carbon copy of this bill and claim all the kudos. That is fine. You can do whatever you like as long as we get this up. It is very important for the people using our Northern Territory health system to feel any complaints made about the system will be followed up by the Health Complaints Commissioner …
Mr Tollner: You would not want the Leader of Government Business bringing that bill in. It might end up on the bottom of the Notice Paper.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr CONLAN: That is right. As it stands, the Health Complaints Commissioner has no power to investigate her own recommendations. I believe that is very important. It is a modern step, it is the appropriate way forward in a modern, complex health system with an enormous number of people utilising it, particularly in the Northern Territory, and right across Australia. In the Northern Territory, our five major hospitals are under enormous pressure.
The two big hospitals, Alice Springs and Darwin, are under constant pressure, day in, day out. There are always going to be instances of concern. There are always going to be people who slip through the cracks inadvertently, and those people need to have their concerns and complaints dealt with in an appropriate manner. We cannot rely on a government, or a minister, to allow the investigation of those complaints, or disallow the investigation of those complaints, depending on whether it is good news or bad news. More often than not, it is bad news when someone falls through the cracks. It should rise above politics and the longevity of the current minister and their job security. This is about Territorians’ welfare in utilising the Northern Territory health system.
It is pretty simple, and the minister outlined some of those concerns. Why we have to send it to another review, another committee, send it off for more consultation, is beyond me, particularly when we already have that review sitting in someone’s filing cabinet - whether it be the member for Nightcliff’s filing cabinet, the member for Johnston’s filing cabinet, or the member Casuarina’s filing cabinet …
Mr Tollner: You could say Peter Toyne has it.
Mr CONLAN: I thought about Toyne; however, I do not think so. It is probably in someone’s filing cabinet somewhere up there. Why can we not get this and implement those recommendations? This is very important; it is a modern step forward in addressing the concerns of the Territory health system.
First, the act does not allow the commissioner powers of own motion investigation as I stated. Section 12(1)(a) of the act restricts the commissioner from investigating matters that are referred to her by the Legislative Assembly or through a formal complaints process. That, to me, is completely wrong. The Health Complaints Commissioner should have those powers available to her, particularly when we are dealing with something as serious as the health of Northern Territorians. This is the way to go. A government which does not allow this has only one thing on its mind - their culture of cover-up. They clearly have something to hide, or are very concerned about what the Health Complaints Commissioner might uncover if she was able to go in on her own bat.
Second, the commissioner has no power to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in these reports. This is a specific amendment to the act called for by the commissioner in her 2008-09 annual report. She points out she is unable to investigate the implementation of agreed recommendations, and she cannot confirm which of those recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. It leaves the complaints commissioner out in the cold. The commissioner has stated in her 2008-09 report:
There it is in black and white from the commissioner. It is a straightforward, clear recommendation and should be supported. If the government insists on not supporting it, then it needs to, after having a very long, hard look at itself, do everything possible to bring in this amendment. We will support it, I can promise you that.
I am not surprised the minister has not supported the bill; it is too much hard work. We have seen the track record of this government, particularly over the last couple of years, and its ability to get through the government business agenda at all. Thank goodness for MPIs and General Business Day brought on by the opposition. We are prepared to work right through the night; we started that. You chopped us off at 9 pm, and we are flat out getting there. If it was not for these GBDs, we would be well and truly out of here. I bet London to a brick about it. Just as well the opposition is here.
Throughout the course of this debate issues have been raised about the Country Liberals, the conservative side of politics, and our attitude towards health. The Country Liberals are dedicated to providing world-class healthcare to Territorians, as is the federal Coalition. Only a few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and the shadow Health minister, Peter Dutton, announced the Coalition’s Mental Health Policy. It was described by mental health experts as visionary, touching 100 000 young Australians afflicted by mental illness.
The shadow Health minister, at the National Press Club last week, outlined some of the points. The plan is to open an additional 60 headspace sites across the country, and 20 early psychosis prevention and intervention centres, where 800 acute and sub-acute beds will make a big difference in changing lives for the better. He said it was a large investment - about $1.5bn. If the Coalition is elected this Saturday, it will be the second biggest investment in mental health in the country’s history, with the largest being a $1.9bn investment in 2006, when Tony Abbott was Health minister. In many ways it was a tangible demonstration of the different approach to health by the Coalition, and the state and federal Labor governments.
We have seen where state Labor has taken health. As a result of their apathy towards and their complete inability to manage health, we have a situation where, if elected, the Labor government is poised to take over the health system. It is called health reform; it is nothing like health reform. It is not health reform; it is simply a change in the funding split. Nevertheless, as a result of poor management by long-term Labor governments, the health system in this country has been brought to a situation needing federal intervention. This is not a fault of the system. I believe in the system, and I believe a good, well-managed government can deliver proper health services to its jurisdiction. Under long-term state Labor governments, we have seen this eroded to a point where the federal government is poised to take it over.
More than ever, the Australian people are looking at the capacity of a government to not just promise, more importantly, to deliver. It is very important we point this out because time after time we are dealt mistruths, and history is rewritten for the sake of scoring political points or painting the opposition into a corner. We should all burn up and go away because we have no idea and have brought this country to its knees. If it was not for the Labor party there would be no Northern Territory or, indeed, no Australia.
A member: Hallelujah!
Mr CONLAN: Hallelujah, exactly. Thank goodness.
When the Coalition was in government it increased the immunisation rate of children from just over 50%, to 90%. It lifted private health insurance coverage from mid-30% to 45%.
There was an increase in the total investment in health from $20bn from 1995-96, the dying days of the Keating government, to $51.8bn in 2007-08. That was quite an achievement, and quite a substantial increase. They improved access to pharmaceutical benefits, with increased expenditure in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme from $2.2bn in 1996–97 to $6.4bn in 2006–07. They increased funding for medical research from $127m - and the member for Johnston might remember this in his role at the Menzies School of Health Research - an increase in funding for medical research from $127m in 1995–96 to $544m in 2007-08. Not a bad achievement and not a bad investment in health research at all.
There were nine new medical schools across the country; 3700 additional commencing nursing places between 2005 and 2007; and access to $4250 of Medicare benefits over two years for dental services for patients with chronic illness. That was a wonderful initiative which allowed people suffering from serious dental issues relating to their chronic illness $4250 worth of dental work. The Rudd/Gillard government moved to abolish that. I believe it is still in place.
Those are some of the achievements of the Coalition in health. When you hear this tired old line about …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: They are tangible achievements; money has gone in - an input and an outcome. That is what we saw with the Coalition over their last 11 years of government. A great track record and I am sure, under the stewardship of the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, that will continue and, no doubt, under the stewardship of Tony Abbott, if elected Prime Minister, that will continue and increase.
The Coalition has a great record on health, as do the Country Liberals. If you a look at the figures from …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that you are closing debate on the Health and Community Services Complaints Amendment, and note Standing Order 67 - Digression from Subject:
Madam SPEAKER: We have allowed more than 10 minutes digression. I am asking you to bear in mind, member for Greatorex, this is a bill you put before the House.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Madam Speaker. Shall I continue?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you may continue.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, thank you for the guidance, I appreciate it. I am responding to claims made throughout the course of this debate. I have addressed areas of this bill. As is the right of each member in the allocated time to respond to claims and allegations made by those also contributing to this debate, that is what I am doing.
There has been much talk in this debate about the Country Liberals’ record on health. I believe the Country Liberals have a strong track record in delivering health services across the Northern Territory. At the moment we have some of the worst and longest hospital waiting lists, for both emergency surgery and elective surgery, in the country. We have been that way for quite a few years. The latest The State of Our Public Hospitals report paints a pretty bleak picture of the situation in the Northern Territory. We are only in front of Tasmania and, in some cases, the ACT - not a great track record. A decade ago, 90% of patients waiting for elective surgery were operated on within the recommended time - 90% of people who turned up needing elective surgery were seen to in the recommended time.
Fast forward to 2009, eight years after this government was elected, and the figure has dropped to 69% and is falling. In 2001, the median time for elective surgery was 25 days. In 2006-07, six years after this government was elected, it was 35 days. In 2007-08, seven years after this government was elected, that figure had blown out to a whopping 43 days. We have gone from 25 days to 43 – nearly double. Not a great track record; not a lot to hang your hat on. No doubt the member for Johnston contributed to that, as had previous Health ministers.
The median waiting time of 43 minutes in emergency is the longest in the country; up from 39 minutes last year. Further, only 52% of patients in Northern Territory emergency departments are seen within the clinically recommended time for their triage category. It is not a great track record. The government has little to be proud of in this area.
This was an opportunity to do something right for Territorians, for the Northern Territory, by supporting this bill. It is very simple. You have had plenty of time to look at it, yet you cannot bring yourselves to support something positive and do something positive for the health and wellbeing of Northern Territorians. For the first time in your lives, do something positive. Let us do something for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Tollner: Can you tell us which one was worse?
Mr CONLAN: That is a very good question, member for Fong Lim, which might require a little research. It is hard to tell who was the worst because it is such a close race. On a bad day there were no Health ministers in the Country Liberals who came close to the ineptness and laziness of the crop of Health ministers we have seen over the last eight years …
Mr Tollner: They were never as bad as the best of them.
Mr CONLAN: I think you have it; you have the picture.
This was an opportunity to support legislation which would see something positive; perhaps lift the cloud off the culture of cover-up you have been tainted with that everyone knows is the hallmark of the Territory Labor government. This was a chance to say: we are open and transparent, we do not have anything to hide, bring the complaints commissioner into the picture and allow her these own motion investigation powers. It is pretty simple.
We stand firm on our record, and the Coalition stands firm on its record. It has a wonderful track record, which I have placed on the Parliamentary Record. Real action is the catch cry, and the Coalition, under Tony Abbott, is delivering real action, has delivered real action, and will continue to deliver real action. We will take a leaf out of their book: if we are elected at the next Territory election we will support real action. We will not just spend money, we will deliver outcomes. It is pretty simple, and is not hard to do.
Madam Speaker, it is very disappointing the minister, and the government, refuse to support it although not surprising. It is 7.15 pm; it is nearly time to go home.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, the primary objectives of this bill put forward by the member for Blain are to mandate the Police Commissioner resolve grievances lodged by members within six months, and allow the minister to approve a three-month extension for the resolution of a grievance under certain circumstances. The government believes this bill is flawed on a number of grounds, including it is bad policy and practice to involve a minister directly in a member’s grievance or employment issues. This is a long-standing convention, and this bill sets up a very bad relationship between a minister and employees - albeit police officers who are statutory officers - if this bill were to become law.
Excluding ministers from involvement in employment issues of the kind contemplated within this bill is a generally accepted policy and practice in public sector employment. This practice is based on sound administrative principle. This principle is expressed, for example, in section 22 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, which generally prohibits ministers from involvement in relation to a public servant’s employment, which is entirely appropriate; we should not be involved in such processes.
Not all grievances are capable of resolution; they are often complex and can be referred to other forums in the civil jurisdiction. No one would disagree with the principle that employee grievances should be considered in a reasonable time frame with a view to achieving resolution of the relevant matter in the first instance. However, the bill, as drafted, is flawed in its approach to these issues. The new Police Commissioner is reviewing provisions in the Police Administration Act, in consultation with the Northern Territory Police Association. Both the commissioner and the association agree the government should wait until that process is finalised before considering amendments to the act.
Madam Speaker, in this context, the government does not support the bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a response by the opposition to address a real problem, one which has been long expressed by members of the police force: that matters need to be dealt with in a time frame which ensures there is progress, and there are some parameters around the resolution of difficult matters.
We know the problems that arise from allowing drift when it comes to resolving grievance, and it is good practice to recognise there needs to be a response to the unresolved nature of grievances and how they can affect the morale and culture of an organisation.
It is surprising, then perhaps not surprising, that this Labor administration’s principle objection is they do not want to take responsibility, and there is an aversion to ministerial accountability. I note the clever way it has been crafted to provide them with space to stand; they do not want to inject themselves into the process. Ultimately, responsibility is borne by the minister; otherwise there would not be a minister.
There is a requirement, a full stop, a mechanism, whereby matters of concern can be corralled and managed, and there can be some expectation these matters be dealt with in a timely manner. It is a shame the opportunity to accept responsibility and place those real parameters around the resolution of grievances has been backed away from by the Labor minister, by this Labor government, because there is a need for a response. If this is recognising the reluctance to assume responsibility and to set some parameters and back away from that, sadly that appears to be the form. There is no description of an alternative response. There is no recognition there is a problem.
The problem is if the opposition has an idea they reject, they give their explanation, but there is no recognition of the underlying problem from the point of view of government, nor is there the description of any alternative course of action. That is disappointing. I would have expected, at least, some acknowledgement of a problem and some attempt as a means to address that problem.
Nonetheless, I hope as we go to a decision on this matter, there needs to be that ultimate responsibility borne by a minister to ensure - not so much injecting into the process and making sure they need to be aware of certain elements of the grievance – no, it is to ensure if you do not set an expectation, a standard, a parameter, it is going to drift as it has. Ultimately, it is at that level to ensure there is a response in 14 days and it is dealt with within six months. That is all the minister needs to know, so these matters do not drift forever.
Response in 14 days, dealt with within six months. If it is exceptionally complex, at that point the minister sanctions an extension, and there has to be a good reason. If there has been a response, there has been six months to attend to it and you need more time because it is complex, there is the requirement, you would assume, for the minister to be aware there is a complex matter at hand. These complex matters, if not dealt with, affect the culture of an organisation, of which the minister is ultimately responsible.
There has been an excuse made for not supporting this. There has been no attempt made to provide an alternative solution, which I find immensely disappointing. No responsibility taken, no innovation with regard to a response to a real problem, and I find that a real shame. I am certain, as members reflect on this, they would be able to make their own judgment. Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this important amendment.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this matter be held over until such time as the member for Drysdale is in a position to pursue the matter further. I put on the record my thanks to members for their courtesy.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 28 April 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, in relation to Traffic Amendment (Forfeiture and Impounding Orders) Bill 2010 (Serial 97), the bill does not have the support of government. There is no doubt drink-driving is a problem in the Northern Territory. I have stated, on a number of occasions, the statistics relating to drink-driving offences are nothing to be proud of.
I have described how the Territory has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for drink-driving offences, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in these statistics. People who drink and drive are a danger to themselves and every other Territorian on the road, which is why they face prison time. This amendment does not attempt to address or improve the issue of drink-driving on our roads. This bill proposes to introduce a new penalty points system for drink-driving offences. We do not need a new scoring system. We need evidence-based policy which we know will make our roads safer.
The proposed increase in penalty points, depending on the level of offence, ultimately resulting in impounding and forfeiture of a vehicle - these points will stay active for a period of five years. If an offender has three, but less than six active penalty points, the police may apply, prior to a person being found guilty, for an impounding order of 48 hours for the vehicle used in committing the offence. If a person has at least six active penalty points, the police may apply, prior to a person being found guilty, for a forfeiture order for the vehicle used in committing the offence.
The bill also makes a finding of guilt for a previous low-range drink-driving offence for the purposes of determining whether a high or medium drink-driving offence is a second or subsequent offence. We need to ask the question, why? What effect will this have on reducing drink-driving accidents on our roads? Vehicle sanctions are used in relatively few countries around the world as a penalty for drink-driving, being limited only to some areas in the United States of America, New Zealand, and a number of Canadian provinces. The New Zealand experience shows many vehicles impounded are often never collected. The authorities are left with numerous old cars they must store or dispose of, at additional cost. Territory police expect a similar situation would occur in the Northern Territory.
A discussion paper prepared in the Australian Capital Territory identified a number of social equity and other issues with vehicle confiscation, including unintended effects on family member; the possibility of inconsistent application of the law as some offenders may not be subject to this penalty if the vehicle used in committing the offence is not their vehicle and was used without the knowledge and consent of the owner; logistical and administrative problems, particularly in remote and regional areas; cost associated with administering the scheme; and low retrieval by owners of the vehicles.
What are the expert views? I thank the member for Braitling for taking the time to be briefed by the George Institute for International Health. The institute is an internationally recognised organisation with extensive experience in providing independent, strategic road safety advice to state, territory and federal governments in Australia and overseas. These experts have told us confiscation of vehicles is not effective. They have said it is a very expensive approach to address driver compliance with very little benefit as a deterrent. The lack of alternative travel options is an issue in remote and regional areas. The removal of a vehicle may result in a family having no other means of travel to major centres to access basic services.
The bill required the registrar to maintain a penalty point register which records the sex and age of the offender, and whether the person is identified as Indigenous. Data on Indigenous offenders is currently collected by police or through the Department of Justice when the person enters the court system. The requirement for the recording of this information and preparation of an annual report providing statistics would require changes in data systems and licensing processes. It would require more public servants to collect the information. Do we want public servants collecting and processing data? If we had more resources, do we want to put those resources into frontline policing?
Impounding or forfeiting vehicles for repeat drink-driving offences will further exacerbate the social disadvantage for Indigenous people residing in regional and remote areas. In addition, Territory police have indicated there would be logistical issues in seizing and storing vehicles in remote areas. There will, potentially, be significant cost to police and government, and it is possible the value of many impounded vehicles will mean their owners will fail to collect them.
This means police will require impoundment yards across the Territory. Where will they be built? How will they be managed? Towing contractors in the bush are not common; how are police going to get cars to the yards? How does the opposition propose these construction projects be funded? Which services would need to be cut? There is a great need to provide detail. In remote areas police may be the sole provider of storage for vehicles, and their ability to recoup costs on disposal will be very limited.
The opposition’s proposed amendments do not attempt to close the gap for people from remote and Indigenous communities. The proposal would have very little benefit on current sentencing outcomes, and lead to unintended consequences impacting on family or community members related to the offender.
Road safety is a priority of this government and is high on the national agenda, and any evidence-based initiative to reduce the impacts of drink-driving is welcome. However, the effectiveness of this legislation is difficult to determine, as there is little in the way of research and data provided to support the proposal.
I listened, with interest, to the member for Braitling during his second reading speech - and what a performance it was. For the record, the bill before us is not the result of a negotiated agreement between the member for Braitling and me, or my staff. There was no agreement whatsoever. The member for Braitling knows our discussions in Alice Springs last year in relation to his previous Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38), were intended to give the recently introduced alcohol ignition locks a chance to work before ripping cars away from families. It was also pointed out to the member, at the time, his amendment bill contained a major error in regard to his intent that vehicle forfeiture would result only after three offences within five years. This bill before us is not the result of some supposed agreement, and it does not give the alcohol ignition locks a chance to work before vehicle impoundment or forfeiture occurs.
This government is interested in evidence-based policy. Where is the evidence in this policy? Where is the data to show this proposal will reduce the Territory’s road toll? The member’s second reading speech was typical of what we have come to expect: plenty of assumptions, plenty of allegations with no details, no costings, and extremely little evidence, justification or common sense.
I refer to the Parliamentary Record where, in April, in his closing remarks, the member said:
In that second reading speech the member for Braitling was so intent on ridiculing me as the Transport minister, and my speeding infringement, he lost the plot and failed to recognise the debate in the House, and consequently delivered a less than appropriate result for supporting his own legislation.
This bill has nothing to do with speed on our roads; this is about drink-drivers. The adjournment speech on the same evening proves this. I have heard of some backpedalling before, but during that adjournment, recorded on the Parliamentary Record, I believe the member for Braitling was doing double time.
The current drink-driving penalties allow for substantial fines, demerit points, alcohol ignition locks, imprisonment, and loss of licence. Road safety experts tell us these proposed amendments would have little or no impact on drink-driving, and incur a very high cost to administer.
I will highlight changes since 2006 under the Labor government. Our current penalties are tough and allow substantial fines, alcohol ignition locks, loss of licence, and imprisonment. We have doubled the fines for below 0.08% offences; introduced immediate licence suspension of three months for second offence in three years; immediate licence suspension of six months for subsequent offences in three years; introduced alcohol ignition lock sentencing provisions; increased enforcement and improved detection of drink-driving, such as increasing the time limit on taking breath tests and blood samples; and improved road safety education.
Alcohol ignition locks are new technology to the Territory, and are the point of difference between the Territory government’s policy and the opposition. The issue is changing driver behaviour. The government is listening to the experts in road safety. In the interests of Territorians’ lives, we have, and will continue to introduce world’s best practice. We will continue our efforts in delivering safer roads for Territorians. Taking away the car which may be the only way family members have of getting themselves around could have significant health and social impacts. Research conducted by Curtin University suggests up to 90% of repeat offenders have an underlying serious alcohol problem, and many will be alcohol dependant. Available research shows this bill will not work. It will not reduce our road toll, and the member for Braitling has been briefed on this issue by leading experts in the field.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I point out that, under our current penalty regime, if a person exceeds 0.05% more than once we take them off the road. This amendment does nothing. If a person blows over 0.08%, they are off the road immediately. Nothing happens under this amendment. If a person repeatedly drinks and drives, fines increase, the periods of licence cancellation increases, and alcohol ignition lock sentences or imprisonment periods are imposed. This bill will not work, and the government does not support the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard a very interesting argument from the minister, and it concerns me he has the habit of reading out responses written by departmental officials - staffers upstairs - without thinking about them, because I would not have brought those arguments to this House. Whilst I appreciate the government would not support this legislation, I could think of more cogent arguments than the minister has provided. I ask him to turn a critical eye upon things prepared for him before he comes into this House.
I am somewhat perplexed. On consideration of the argument, the government is, on one hand, concerned about the social impacts of this bill, and on the other talks about how tough it is in imposing its will upon the people of the Northern Territory who drink and drive. We have the argument there is a dreadful social impact by taking someone’s car away and their mode of transport, and on the other hand, my goodness, we will fine them to the tune of thousands of dollars. I am wondering what the social impact is of fining a family on a low income thousands of dollars as opposed to taking their car away? If the minister is serious about running the argument he is concerned about the social impact of the legislative instrument by way of penalty, then he should be arguing, if he wants to remain consistent with the philosophy behind it, about the social impact of taking a driver’s licence away. He should be concerned about the impact of fining a drink-driver thousands of dollars, because all those things have impacts on families.
He says the philosophy of government is to address driver behaviour. I could not think of a greater way of addressing a driver’s behaviour than taking their car away. This is not, in the words of the member for Johnston, ‘rocket science’; this is straightforward stuff. It does not bear rational reconciliation with those two positions. He is saying: ‘We know best. We have all the tools, alcohol ignition locks and all the other devices, to impose our will as a state upon those drink-drivers but we are not going to impose our will, as a state, on those drink-drivers through this mechanism’.
The argument is not consistent. I am happy to be tough on drink-drivers; it is a good idea. This bill proposes we be tough on drink-drivers. However, you cannot run the social equity argument parallel to that argument. You either care about the social equity component or you care about the road safety component. That is where you have to come from in relation to this.
I am not particularly comfortable with the social equity argument because I have never seen social equity as an issue when a tonne of metal runs over a person. A tonne of metal does not care whether you are rich or poor. A tonne of metal does the damage a tonne of metal does when controlled by a drink-driver and, as the target of this bill is concerned, repeat drink-drivers.
The second component of the minister’s argument is cost. You cannot do this sort of thing, and there are budgetary impacts you need to consider. Why does he talk about alcohol ignition locks or the interlock systems? That particular government policy was an off-budget spend. It was not budgeted for in the financial year it was introduced. The Cabinet submission put a value of $400 000 to $450 000 to set up the process to run the ignition lock devices. As far as I am aware one has been issued. The policy of off-budget spend, something the minister is critical of the member for Braitling for, has produced one interlock device. I could stand corrected because that information is about two or three months old. I would like to hear from the minister: how many interlock devices have been fitted as a result of this policy, outside the normal budget cycle, and how much did it cost? Was it less or more than the Cabinet submission suggested?
Introducing policy on the run, something the minister accuses the member for Braitling of, is well-established by this government. They did it with the interlock devices. They did it with the justification it was necessary to introduce a policy which would have an immediate effect. Okay, stick with that argument, take that position, but do not use the argument to run down the policy of the member for Braitling. It shows a level of inconsistency which reduces this argument to a mere political squabble whilst we talk about the lives of Territorians.
The other issue is the process; it would require change in process for public servants. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! They are the government. They are the people elected to serve the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, and they should be running the Northern Territory. If the only excuse they can provide to resist legislative instruments like this is it might be a little difficult for public servants to re-jig the way they do things, the tail is wagging the dog and that is not a rational approach. Furthermore, if there is a budget impact, what prevents the minister from saying to member for Braitling: ‘We cannot do it this financial year. Can you wait until next financial year and we can work it into our costings? That way we can get processes in place’. At the heart of this issue is whether or not this is a good idea. It is a good idea.
The minister says there is research to say it is not a good idea. Clearly, some provinces in Canada do it. The United States, New Zealand, and several other places think it is a good idea. You say there is no evidence to support it. Well, they thought there was some evidence to support it.
Could you produce the evidence you claim shows this system does not work? If it does not work in those jurisdictions, demonstrate it. Do not make the assertion in the same way you accused the member for Braitling of making the assertion. If the argument is the member for Braitling cannot introduce this because he has no evidence, the minister should produce evidence to demonstrate the strength of his argument because the evidence must be there to support his assertion. There are numerous jurisdictions in other parts of the world which have a system like this.
Furthermore, the question of what the police would do with the cars is an absolute furphy. The system is already there if you are a grog runner. Every police station in the bush has a compound with seized cars in it. At Papunya police station right now there would be four or five cars parked out the back. In the exhibit room of that police station will be perhaps a dozens casks of that lady in the boat - Coolabah wine – that type of thing. The police already do that. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, an aeroplane was once seized by police in Port Keats; it was taking grog into Port Keats. The police knew this was happening and they seized an aeroplane under the Liquor Act. To the question of police not being in a position to do it, and what infrastructure would have to be built, the answer is: none, unless the minister has said to the police: ‘Can you find us a way to fight this?’, and the police say: ‘All right, we may have to build an extra compound at every police station’, which is nonsense.
That means we would need to double the number of compounds we already have, which is one for every bush police station, which would be expensive. Yes, you can find the answer that way, however, those compounds are large enough to accommodate cars seized for drink-driving offences, other exhibits, miscellaneous property reports which occasionally apply themselves to vehicles, grog runners’ cars, and cars which are occasionally locked in police compounds because the police officer is kind enough to look after someone’s car when they are in the community for a couple of days for another reason.
There are a number of reasons cars end up in police compounds, and to assert police compounds do not exist is an absolute furphy and demonstrates this government is not even going to take the time to seriously challenge the legislative instrument before this House.
I suspect this probably did not make it to the department. This was probably several phone calls to the police department: ‘Mate, if you have to build more compounds, how much would it cost?’ The officer says: ‘Oh, bucket loads’. ‘Okay, that will do.’ Then a staffer in the department types the response and they think they have it covered. The ignorance of the person writing the minister’s reply is demonstrable because they assume these compounds do not exist.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister talks about being a serious legislator; the minister should reflect on being a serious legislator. This is good legislation. Not a single relevant, forceful, or useful argument has been produced by the minister to defeat this legislation. It could be another weapon in the arsenal the minister already has to fight drink-driving, and he should welcome it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a long few weeks in parliament. We are two-thirds of the way into the second week of sittings and it seems we are finally starting to get some wins; starting to hit some straps. We are starting to come home with good politics for the Country Liberals.
I am not surprised the government did not support this legislation. They knock me back on transport reform all the time despite the fact, since their road reforms in 2006–07, we have seen the road toll climb and drunks, and their passengers, dying. I do not expect Labor to take any action to toughen things up. The member for Port Darwin spoke about the alcohol interlock system and how that is working. He spoke about one AIL two months ago; they might be up to two now, member for Port Darwin. They are really hitting their straps; they are coming home with a wet sail.
Why will government not take serious action? Drink-driving has puzzled me for some time because we know our gaols are full of drink-drivers. We know there is a drinking problem. We know people are picked up for DUI, put into gaol. Our gaols are full, and government cannot get law and order sorted. They have to release the prisoners to incarcerate new ones. The charade was given up last week when we were debating legislation around the transport of dangerous goods. The Attorney-General said: ‘We have a policy in this government. We have a policy. We have a middle-of-the-road policy, not too shoddy like those other lazy Labor jurisdictions. Not too good, not excellent; we have a middle-of-the-road policy’.
That is why they will not accept this outstanding reform. They have a middle-of-the-road policy which just goes along. They do not want to address the issue; they do not want to get drunks off the road, or take cars from people who are drunk. You have to recognise, as the minister said - and I will paraphrase: ‘Member for Braitling, research shows these people are alcohol abusers; they have a chronic alcohol problem’. Let us take their cars off them! What about the people who are hit or killed? I am sure his instructions from Cabinet are: take the middle of the road; do not go too far left or right.
The Attorney-General said her government has a middle-of-the-road policy - nothing outstanding - middle of the road. If only the government had an approach similar to the new Police Commissioner. Leader of Government Business, I apologise, I do not have the date. However, I know this was on ABC with Mel James on the 9 am news time slot. I quote:
This is before our amendment and the second reading speech. Melinda James said:
James says: ‘Repeatedly?’
It is good to see the Police Commissioner is on board with our thinking. It is a pity the government has a middle-of-the-road policy and cannot see the wisdom the Police Commissioner is portraying and the Country Liberals are pursuing.
We have heard the minister say it is not fair if people lose their car, especially if they are in a remote area. The middle-of-the-road policy by the Labor government is if you live in a remote area it is all right to drink and drive; we will not place harsh penalties on you. We will look after the urban people; they will have tough penalties. How dare you think about taking a car from someone in the bush for drink-driving - how dare you.
I have to ask where the missing soldier is. Where is the missing commie? Where is the 13th member of the Labor government? Where is the member for Nelson? The original bill, the three strikes policy, was if you were caught three times - where one of those times in a five-period was a high range - you would have your car confiscated. The member for Nelson said that was too harsh. I met with the minister, his advisors, my advisors, and we all talked, held hands and nearly sang Kumbaya, and the member for Nelson said: ‘No, no’. The alternate Labor member, the member for Nelson, wants a new point system. He said it is too harsh straight up. We need a policy where you can have a little take your car for 48 hours, a little alcohol ignition lock, and a little forfeiture.
It all sounded too hard. We worked out a model with Parliamentary Counsel and decided to forget the original amendment; we would have a new model reflective of what the member for Nelson wants, yet the member for Nelson is not here in this debate. This was designed around what he wanted – not even here. I wish we had the …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I remind you that reference to the absence of members is contravening standing orders. I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I did not make reference to anyone not being here. Not here in the debate. I did not say he was not in the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it was very plain to me that that is what you were saying. I ask you to withdraw, please. Thank you.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The member for Nelson is not even in this debate - has not even spoken.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that is much clearer. If you wish to say he has not spoken in the debate ...
Mr GILES: Has not spoken. For those who do not understand, we will make it clear: the member for Nelson, the 13th member of the Labor government, who wanted these reforms, has not spoken to this proposal which has been put forward, the Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 97).
When we see people throughout the Territory drinking and driving, at low, medium or high range, repeat offenders, people having accidents, people dying in motor vehicle accidents as a direct result of drink-driving, I say government was soft.
You cannot regulate to stop all accidents, but you have to try. It is part of our job as regulators. That is why we are in this House of debate, and we come forward with a tough penalty which says you will lose your car for 48 hours for drink-driving. You are caught for high range, first time – 48 hours. That is a good rule, a fine rule. You are caught for a third offence at different rates on the penalty system, designed by the 13th member of the Labor government, the member for Nelson, you forfeit your car. I do not care if it is Ferrari or a Mini. You do not drink and drive on Territory roads and put the lives of men, women and children at risk because you have been irresponsible. The government is clearly being irresponsible by not taking further initiatives.
We see the road safety reforms in 2007, the road toll goes up to 57, up to 75, and we are seeing it rise every year. Something needs to be done. We are a disgrace. When you compare road tolls from other jurisdictions we are disgraceful.
We talk about gaol, we talk about prisoners and corrections; and the Minister for Transport is also the minister for Corrections. Surely you have to undertake some action to stop people going to gaol? There are not enough education programs around drink-driving; insufficient penalties in place to stop people from drink-driving. People just drink and drive.
The Chief Minister spoke about the new initiative to curb alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence put out by the Northern Territory News, which is a fantastic initiative; I might sign up to that myself. Putting reforms in place around traffic offences in relation to domestic violence is one piece of the pie which helps reduce the consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory which leads to other things, whether it be domestic violence, whether it be assault or whether it be traffic accidents that result in death. You have to have a comprehensive approach.
If people know they are putting at risk the ownership of their SS Commodore or their FPV Falcon they might think twice about drinking and driving. It will have a positive effect, and it does not matter if it affects 10 000 people or 100 people. Any reduction in drink-driving or alcohol consumption is positive. That is why I do not bag out the AIL. There may only be one person, but that one person has been affected. It is a big cost for one person - or whatever the number is now – however, it is a positive outcome we have to continue with.
I am a big supporter of evidence-based policy. I could not agree more. Reforms have to be based on evidence. However, there are times when there are not simple matches in jurisdictions, or geography, or population base, or some statistical data where you can get an accurate reflection of evidence for such reforms. Sometimes you have to take a risk and produce the evidence yourself to make a success, and if you fail you scrap it. That is what happens. We continue to change legislation because we are in changing times. There is an opportunity to take risks in going further and being tough.
As part of Seniors Month, I held a forum in Alice Springs on Monday. Seniors were asking me about antisocial behaviour and crime. I tried to take a non-political approach and said words to the effect of: you have to send a strong message to the community that you are going to be tough and bring penalties. It is not like Territory elections-style tough - who is the toughest on law and order and things like that. It is about the impression of tough. You know there is someone with that big stick and you might lose your car.
It pains me to think we do not have any ramifications. The biggest ramification for me in getting caught drink-driving at 0.06, 0.07 is the Minister for Transport will ridicule me in parliament as I ridiculed him for his speeding ticket. That is the biggest penalty for me, and I say that in the sense of the assumption of the biggest penalty.
Of course, it is not good to drink and drive; you could hurt someone. My fear is it would be bad for me in my job. There are people out there who do not have that fear. If they get picked up drink-driving, it does not bother them. It pains me the people in my electorate who drink and drive every day - I give them a boot. Some of them are associates or friends. You are trying to convince people in your circle not to drink and drive - sometimes you struggle with that. A loud message that we are tough would be a good reform. I am afraid we are not going to be tough on drink-driving and road safety reform in the Northern Territory until after August 2012, when the Country Liberals hopefully take over. That is when we will see real reforms on our roads.
People listening to this broadcast need to think about how government looks at forfeiture of vehicles. In the Northern Territory, Labor says it is okay to seize your car if you have been peddling grog, if you have caught too many fish; however, it is not okay to seize your car if you have been drink-driving. I find that very hard to believe. You can do a burnout or catch too many fish and lose your car, however, heaven forbid, that you drink and drive.
It is amazing; lose your boat for too many fish, lose your car for too much grog, however, a $100 or $200 fine if you drink and drive. Where are the penalties? This is a social morality position the government takes saying it is going to be hard for people. We have clauses for hardship, the magistrate is allowed to provide some leeway in how he assesses it, and we recognise there could be hardship, and that is part of the penalty process. You have to be at pains - stop drinking and driving.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not continue with this. I accept the judge’s decision; the minister will not support it. I am disappointed all this work has been done to reflect what the 13th member of the Labor Party, the member for Nelson, wanted, and he has not supported it. I find that highly unprofessional. We will put it to the vote. Maybe he will support this legislation.
The Assembly divided:
Continued from 28 April 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be brief. I will give it the contempt this legislation deserves. This is a slight variation on the previous bill of the member for Katherine, and was rejected in February last year. I do not propose to repeat what has previously been said other than reiterate the following.
The 2008 bill sought to amend the Aboriginal Land Act to allow a new section providing for the granting of a general exemption for the need to have a permit to enter intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land. The new bill seeks the same outcome. The only change is the amendment to the penalty provision from $1000 to 10 units for anyone who contravenes the condition of the general exemption.
Section 5(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act already provides a land council or traditional owners can waive the requirement for a permit to enter Aboriginal land, which includes waters over that land. This bill will not provide any benefit to current discussions with the land councils, nor the current Tiwi Island situation. To the contrary, it would most likely result in an unnecessary distraction to the current sensitive negotiations with the land councils.
The government continues to be in close discussions with the land councils to reach a practical, negotiated outcome, and with the Commonwealth to ensure we receive financial support for the government’s proposals to the land councils.
I challenge the member for Katherine, and any of his colleagues who would stand in support of this disgraceful act, to demonstrate this bill has the support of the land councils. Member for Katherine, where are the letters of support from stakeholders? Where are the letters of support from the Amateur Fishermen’s Association? Where are the letters of support from the land councils?
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not support this bill and we condemn the member for Katherine for yet again bringing in this scurrilous bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Lordy, lordy, lordy, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not funny how the Attorney-General asks for letters from the land councils and amateur fishermen? Where are the letters, Attorney-General, from amateur fishermen rejecting this bill? Where are the letters from the land councils rejecting this bill? If one assumes the bill is not supported by those organisations, surely you would provide this House with evidence. No, the Attorney-General demonstrated she held this bill in contempt. That means she did not do any work. She made no effort to constructively deconstruct this bill, and, more to the point, it did not get past her office. Why? Because the Attorney-General is a legal tyrant.
This bill does nothing more than add to the capacity, in a small way, of the land councils as representatives of the landowners, to have a greater power of choice as to how they exert their title rights. It does nothing to erode those title rights. If the minister believes she knows better than the land councils not to take this matter to them at all, simply to pour her snide derision all over this bill and march away from the argument in a way which shows the contempt she overtly expressed in this House, one can understand the intent of the Attorney-General. She knows best; she knows better than everyone else.
We have seen this expressed in the way the government has dealt with the intertidal issue since the declaration in the Blue Mud Bay case by the Federal Court, and ultimately the High Court of this country. We have seen the contempt she has brought to this arrangement exercised up until that point, because the Federal Court made a determination in relation to native title case.
It is interesting to read these cases - and I will digress into the cases themselves - because they lie at the heart of this bill. The original determination by the Federal Court contained an almost oblique reference to an old law of trespass in relation to what ultimately turned out to be the problem that became the Blue Mud Bay case. If you read the full court’s decision in the Blue Mud Bay case, the issue which affects the intertidal zones has nothing to do with native title, so the Blue Mud Bay case is a misnomer.
There is a general acceptance in the law of trespass - and this was the question put before the Federal Court - where you own lands with water above that land it is not a trespass to take fish from the water that moves across that land. However, that is a very weak exemption indeed, and the question that was put before the Full Bench of the Federal Court was: does the operation and nature of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act diminish that exemption from the law of trespass? The Full Bench of the Federal Court turned their mind to this question, and looked at the Woodward Royal Commission as well as the second reading speeches made in 1976 or 1975, in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as to the intent of the legislature.
Looking at the Woodward Royal Commission, the exclusion zone around Aboriginal land, from memory, extended two nautical miles into the sea - I could be corrected, but some distance into the sea. It was finally determined the extent of the title, when granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, would extend to the low water mark. It was clear to the Federal Court the intent of Justice Woodward was to exert an exclusive proprietorial right out into the sea. Because Woodward was referred to as such a strong source in relation to the drafting of the Land Rights legislation, the determination was made by the Federal Court that reliance on Justice Woodward’s world view, emanating from the Woodward Royal Commission, had the effect of defeating the exemption to the general law of trespass, i.e. that the second reading speeches, and the Woodward Royal Commission, suggested it was the intent of the legislature to defeat the intent of the exemption to the law of trespass.
How did the government respond to this? They responded by saying: ‘We know best, and are going to take a full page in the Northern Territory News with a dog whistle advertisement’ - something we are always accused of on this side of the House. The advertisement will say: “We are fighting for the rights of fishermen, we are fighting for the rights of you poor people against those dreadful Aboriginal people, who are exerting this proprietorial right over your fishing grounds’ What a sickening dog whistle it was, however is it all right because the government knew best.
They have, because of their lack of insight, failed miserably. If any minister in the government had read the full bench decision of the Federal Court in relation to Blue Mud Bay, they could not have been diverted from the realisation the argument by the full bench was so compelling to defeat the intertidal issue they should not have bothered to take it to the High Court. Politics drove it to the High Court. The High Court was not convinced by the government’s assertions; it was utterly convinced by the strength of the argument expressed by the full bench of the Federal Court in relation to the intertidal zones. In other words, the exclusive right to the waters moving over the intertidal zone near the coastline of 80% of the Northern Territory.
Has the arrogance subsided: no, it has not, because this proposed legislative instrument would enable a class of people to be given a permit right to go into those intertidal zones. It would do nothing more than increase the capacity of the landowners to exert their exclusive title rights with greater discretion, which is the purpose of this.
Will it interfere with the negotiation for the land council? – nonsense, it takes nothing away from the land councils. The government’s refusal to accept this amendment takes discretion away from the land councils, and if there was any issue which offends me more about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, I do not know what it is. The greatest problem I have with the Land Rights Act is the incapacity - and by consequence in the Aboriginal Land Act - for the people who have the supposed proprietorial right, not to be allowed to exercise those rights in the discretions available to them. Aboriginal people have land rights? No, they do not. They have something imposed upon them from legislatures, both federal and state, or Territory in this case.
The Aboriginal Land Act reflects that imposition. I support this bill for the simple reason it gives greater proprietorial rights to the traditional owners of Aboriginal lands under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, not lesser rights, which is what the Attorney-General seeks to continue to impose through her arrogance.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, at one point in his second reading speech of 24 February 2010, the member for Katherine purported to characterise his amendment as one which would: be a progressive way of furthering the empowerment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That motivation is suspect coming from a party whose leader, in the immediate aftermath of the Blue Mud Bay decision - because we know the member for Port Darwin likes rewriting history - sought maximum publicity for his announcement he had written to the Prime Minister asking the Commonwealth to legislate to override the High Court and impose his political base - referred to as a public right to fish - on the coastal traditional owners of the Northern Territory.
My suspicions as to motive for the amendment are strengthened by the questionable nature of the claim it achieves anything for Aboriginal land councils and traditional owner groups not already available to them under the existing act. The real driver for this legislation is what the member for Katherine stated at the beginning of his speech. I will not repeat it; the Attorney-General clearly articulated it.
The member for Katherine needs to come clean and say the interests of non-Indigenous people motivated him as author of this bill, and should dispense with any pretence of concern for Aboriginal people.
The member for Katherine has asserted, in his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill (Serial 19), and I quote:
Let us start with section 5(8), which reads:
To put that in context, section 4 imposes the requirement to have a permit to go onto Aboriginal land. Section 5(8) is the mechanism my constituents at Gunbalanya utilise each year when they invite members of the public to come to their community to share and enjoy their annual open day. Nothing in section 5(8) prevents it from being utilised in respect of a particular stretch of intertidal zone, and there is no limit placed on the length of the period or periods for which the permit waiver may operate. For example, a traditional owner group may wish to instruct its land council to open up a particular creek or inlet to the public on a trial basis for a year. That can happen now.
The second mechanism is the more permanent arrangement provided for under section 11. Once again I will read it out in full.
A land council can only make the recommendations contemplated in section 11(1) with the consent and endorsement of the relevant traditional owner group or groups. It is their mouthpiece or agent in that regard. If it was evident Aboriginal people wanted to open up their land for the purpose of section 11, it would clearly be expected the Administrator would formalise that desire.
As we know, a Coalition government in Canberra decided it knew best and, exercising remote control power as if self-government had never happened, legislated all common areas on community land would be open to the public without the need for any permit. In my electorate, community land for the purposes of Commonwealth legislation includes Maningrida, Milikapiti, Minjilang, Nguiu, Pirlangimpi and Warrawi.
A common area means an area generally used by members of the community concerned - and here is where it gets really weird. People in any of my coastal communities generally use the intertidal zone which forms its coastal boundaries. I understand it boasts a compulsory five-year lease under the intervention legislation and, section 19A, whole of township lease at Nguiu, goes to the low water mark. Thanks to the former Coalition government, fishermen from anywhere in Australia can fish the intertidal zone directly adjacent to any of those communities to his or her heart’s content, but not the continuing coastline on either side of that patch.
On what basis is that supposed to be a special measure for the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act? I know the lure - to use my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s terminology for recreational fishermen - is the creeks and inlets rather than the busier beach areas next to Aboriginal communities. The common areas on community land serve to demonstrate the inappropriateness of imposing a one-size-fits-all fix. The great majority of my constituents would strongly object to having strangers boating into their communities without notice or invitation; however would be happy to welcome visitors and individuals through a proper process.
My coastal constituents, especially my Tiwi constituents, have a deep and jealous affection for those creeks and inlets. They value the richness and diversity of the fish and other marine life which can be found there, and understand exploiting that resource is a central aspect of their Indigenous lifestyle, and an economic development opportunity when made available to outsiders.
A permit system enables both things to be addressed. A general exemption arrangement, as outlined by the member for Katherine, certainly does not. The member for Katherine may argue his general exemption proposal comes with the potential for a traditional owner group to decline to let the public at large in, and allow in a notional class defined in what he is calling an instrument of exemption. This is just a smoke screen. What is contemplated is an open invitation to all recreational fishermen, for all intents and purposes an invitation to the general public, similar to the invitation for people to attend the Gunbalanya Open Day.
The member for Katherine well knows Aboriginal people are not going to discriminate in the way he has facetiously suggested in the example he chose when he said: ‘It might be that traditional owners may wish to open up their intertidal zone to people wearing blue shirts or white sandshoes’. On the other hand, if what is really contemplated, if what has arisen from the think tank sessions between the CLP and the Tiwi Land Council’s business genius secretary, assisted perhaps by its media advisor, is the land council will give special recreational fishing concessions to company X or company Y, and the clients of those companies will constitute the special exempted class, then the whole exercise is completely unnecessary.
Section 15(4) of the Aboriginal Land Act allows a land council, or a traditional owner group, to delegate all or part of the authority conferred under the act to issue permits. Community councils have been doing this in the Territory for decades. Company X or company Y can issue permits in that capacity to their clients if that is what the land council or traditional owner group wants, and that is a superior outcome to the litigation magnet model proposed by the member for Katherine.
The member for Katherine’s model allows for conditions being included in an instrument of exemption, and for prosecution action to be taken in the event of a breach of such conditions. There is some merit in the existing section 15(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act being amended by adding an option of Gazette notice and expressly confirming the ability to make such waiver conditional on compliance with conditions. It is my understanding failure to comply with such conditions would render the person concerned liable to prosecution under section 4, so there would not be a need for an additional prosecution provision as proposed in the bill.
Whether a departure from the requirement to have a permit is implemented under existing section 15, or under a scheme along the lines proposed in this bill, enforcement and prosecution is rendered more difficult by predictable claims of mistaken beliefs on the part of a visitor, and reliance on the underlying law of trespass - which the member for Port Darwin suggested - by the person whose authority derives from the freehold ownership of the land.
The bottom line is with the permit system there is no need to resort to complex and troubled laws of trespass. In fact, that was the reason the permit system was adopted initially. If the general exemption model, as outlined by the member for Katherine, is allowed to proceed, disputes will inevitably arise as to whether a person who believes themself to fall within the class, satisfies the qualifying criteria or characteristics of that class, and as to the scope of applicable conditions, whereas proof of a section 4 offence under the Aboriginal Land Act consists principally of proof that the defendant did not have a permit. Persons charged with a contravention of the proposed exemption regime would certainly get off every time by arguing mistakes of fact arising from definitional uncertainty.
This bill, as the Attorney-General said, is a complete distraction from what should be the main focus of the debate, namely the great opportunity the Blue Mud Bay decision has delivered. In its recognition, not just of traditional owner access and control rights - the member for Port Darwin should read the Blue Mud Bay decision - and the Tiwi Land Council, as I have pointed out time and time again. Yes, it recognised traditional owner access and control rights, however, it also recognised the continuing regulatory powers of the Northern Territory government. I am referring to the opportunity we, as a government, have to meld and unify government fisheries and environmental regulations with land councils and traditional owners to look at access supervisions into, for the first time in Northern Territory government history, a seamless administrative regime.
The member for Katherine has visited and had discussions with the Tiwi Land Council, and no discussion with the Northern Land Council, or Anindilyakwa. If the Tiwi Land Council wants to walk away from the highly desirable goal of achieving a better outcome for Tiwi people, that is their right. It is the right of all land councils, however it is also foolish.
The Tiwi Land Council should get back to the table, and there is dialogue with the land council. I am hoping the Tiwi Land Council can get back to the table with the Northern Territory government to resolve this issue for the better outcome of Tiwi people, so they get full economic benefits of their waters in a proper way, and they work together with the Northern Territory government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Katherine’s bill is a distraction. It is plain, foolish politics similar to Senator Scullion launching the Indigenous Affairs policy recently saying they will scrap the permit system and revert to their old ways. Aboriginal people are not stupid; they can see this CLP has not changed. They might have rebadged to call themselves Country Liberal however, as the Chief Minister said today, they are still the same old CLP.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for her contribution to the debate, which was extremely well researched. She has obviously put a great deal of effort into it, which is far more than I can say for the Attorney-General’s contribution. I feel battered and bruised, as if I have been hit by a sponge from the other side. It is terrible.
I said in my closing debate on the bill presented prior to this one, I was disappointed but not surprised the government would not support this bill. I reiterate that my disappointment stems from different reasons. When the Treasurer spoke last time in this debate, on 24 February 2010, she said:
That is not everything she said during the course of the debate. Things have changed since then and the negotiations she was referring to were between the government, landholders, traditional owners and other stakeholders with respect to access over Blue Mud Bay. We have seen what a mash this government has made with those negotiations. We had a promise from the Chief Minister in 2008, prior to the election, he would negotiate permits. He has been unable to do so with any of the land councils. One land council walked away because they were not getting any satisfaction from the government. We are two years down the track and still ‘negotiating’ with the other two land councils.
The member for Arafura quoted sections of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory. Much of what the member for Arafura said was right, however what surprises me is the fact neither the Attorney-General nor the member for Arafura really get it. They do not understand this bill. I challenge the member for Arafura to repeat her intimation there was a deal between the CLP and the Tiwi Land Council which gave rise to the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Act which have been proposed. I stand corrected if that is not what I heard, member for Arafura; it sounded like it.
I will go back to the act. The member for Arafura spoke about several sections which provide for exemptions or waivers. She quoted section 5(8), which I will repeat so I can put all this in context:
That section tells me Aboriginal land councils or traditional owners can provide a waiver for a period of time. That is what it relates to; a waiver for everyone. Everyone who wishes to visit that portion of Aboriginal land has a general waiver for a period of time. There is no provision for conditions which must be specified. A good example is probably Garma. By radio or newspaper, the land council can open up the area affected by the Garma Festival and everyone is welcome.
A member: Did not happen.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I know that. Last year was better than this year.
That section refers to everyone, and refers to a period of time. What it does not provide for are conditions.
The member for Arafura spoke about section 11, which was in relation to open areas. The Administrator may, on the recommendation of a land council, declare by notice in the Gazette, an area of Aboriginal land or road to be open area or open road as the case may be. Subsection (2), where a declaration is made under subsection (1), says a person may enter and remain on an area of Aboriginal land, or use a road described in the notice without obtaining a permit.
That is blanket open area. The Administrator can say he is going to open an area, obviously in consultation with the Aboriginal traditional owners or land council, and open that area for everyone.
The difference between provisions under section 11 and section 5(8) is the proposed amendment provides for an exemption for a class of person. Section 5(8) relates to a period of time for everyone. Section 11 relates to an open area for everyone with no other specifications.
The proposed amendment provides for a general exemption for a class of person. This, in effect, adds a power, or capacity, to landowners or land councils to give an exemption for a class of person. They can say subject to conditions, because that is part of the amendment, for example, fishermen can use Aboriginal land …
Ms Scrymgour: They must have blue shirts and white sandshoes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Arafura. The land councils or traditional owners could give an exemption to people who wear blue shirts and white sandshoes. That is entirely up to them, and the additional capacity inferred by this amendment does not mandate anyone to do anything. It is simply an additional section within the Aboriginal Land Act which provides Aboriginal land councils and Aboriginal people an additional capacity to determine who comes onto their land and, by extension through Blue Mud Bay, those seas which are affected by that decision.
What the member for Arafura says is right. She quoted the sections verbatim, understands those sections, however she does not understand the implications of this amendment and how it differs ...
Ms Scrymgour: I understand very personally.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, you do not.
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You do not understand it. The member for Arafura has introduced politics into this. What I am attempting to do, is provide …
Ms Scrymgour: You are a joke - you are an absolute joke!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Arafura can carry on all she likes. This is an additional provision for Aboriginal people to determine who comes onto their land, and under what conditions. It is as simple as that. There is nothing in this proposed amendment which mandates anyone to do anything. If they wish to use this provision, they can.
I go back to the Treasurer saying to pass the bill while negotiations are progressing would be insensitive, impolite, and damage the progress of these important negotiations. That does not really ring true now. You have already seen the breakdown of negotiations between this government and the Tiwi Land Council. For goodness sake, someone needs to do something positive. We have not seen any negotiated outcomes between government and the land councils. If this legislation were passed tonight and at some time in the future changes needed to be made because of the outcome of negotiations between the government and land councils, we can change that. In the interim, this would give Aboriginal people and land councils the capacity to do something else. They could open up parts of their country to a particular class of person.
I cannot see any problems with this. I have said enough times tonight this legislation has nothing to do with politics; it is about empowering Aboriginal people. I believe it is a positive and good step forward. I see no problems with it.
Last time the Attorney-General spoke on this she suggested the scope of the bill was inconsistent with the High Court decision. It would have been nice for her to elaborate further tonight, however, that was not to be the case.
This will not be passed tonight, however we may see something similar if and when this government can reach a resolution regarding negotiations with the land councils over Blue Mud Bay.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide for a valid public interest disclosure to be made without reward or advantage to a journalist or a member of the Legislative Assembly in circumstances where the disclosure was previously made to the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, or to the Speaker and no action has been taken within a six month period, or inadequate or inappropriate action has been taken.
The bill further proposes that if a disclosure is made to a journalist, there must be reasonable belief held by the disclosure of damage or imminent risk to the environment to property or to an individual.
In his second reading speech, the Leader of the Opposition noted New South Wales was the only jurisdiction which currently has such legislative provisions, and the provision is rarely used. He argued the reason the New South Wales legislation is rarely used was the threat of public exposure compelled the government to deal with a disclosure in a timely, comprehensive and purposeful manner. While it could be argued the threat of media exposure after six months may ensure the commissioner’s office and the public bodies being investigated remain more proactive and answerable, for large, complex investigations the six month time frame for completion of investigations is inappropriate, and could jeopardise sensitive ongoing investigations.
Such time limits are also incompatible with a genuine emergency, for example, where there is serious specific and immediate danger to public health or safety. A principal object of the Public Interest Disclosure Act is to ensure the public interest information is properly investigated and any impropriety revealed by investigation is properly dealt with. Neither exposure may damage or destroy an investigation by making its existence widely known at a time when a carefully planned confidential investigation is under way.
Another principal object of the act is to enable the commissioner’s office to conduct a private investigation where possible, and to protect disclosers from reprisals. Often, disclosers are only comfortable speaking to the commissioner’s office on the basis their identity remains confidential. Publication of a disclosure through the media or an MLA may well cut across such understandings, and may place undue pressure and focus on disclosers and witnesses, particularly those embedded in the public body under scrutiny.
Furthermore, disclosure through the media can allow untested allegations to become public, and unjustly impugn those against whom allegations are made. There is also no requirement that such disclosure be justified, for example, the discloser has reasonable grounds for believing it to be substantially true, or it is, indeed, substantially true. Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there are procedural fairness safeguards to ensure that if adverse comment is going to be made, the individual or public body has the right to comment beforehand. The involvement of the media may impact negatively on procedural fairness, as only one side of the story may be publicised. This is particularly a risk in an environment such as the NT, which is dominated by one media newspaper outlet.
Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the Commissioner of Police must be given the opportunity to comment on any report before it is published in order to protect any person, or any ongoing police investigation, or genuinely in the public interest. An amendment which allows the publication of disclosures through the media or through an MLA circumvents and nullifies those protections.
Further, under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is a two-step reporting process which gives public bodies the initial opportunity to address the discloser’s concerns to the satisfaction of the commissioner’s office. It is only in cases where the response of the public body is unsatisfactory, for example, insufficient steps taken to give effect to a recommendation, that a second report will be referred to the minister for tabling. There is merit in allowing the commissioner’s office the discretion to decide, in the public interest, whether they can work with a relevant body to improve their practices, without the need for a public naming and shaming. Where it is in the public interest the commissioner can table a report through the relevant minister. Allowing an individual discloser to decide whether a matter should be publicly aired through the media or an MLA, removes the commissioner’s discretion.
A discloser’s decision to go public may also be motivated by personal, rather than public interest, reasons. Giving the discloser the discretion to decide when and what should be disclosed to the media, or an MLA, risks compromising the integrity of the public interest disclosure process and, in particular, current investigations into improper conduct by NT public bodies.
Even if it was decided an amendment such as this was justified, it would be better to wait before rushing into amendments. Before it entered caretaker mode, the Australian government announced it was intending to develop legislation which recognises limited circumstances in which direct disclosure could be made to the media. Noting the Public Interest Disclosure Act only came into force in July 2009, and noting the lack of legislative reform on this issue by the various states, it would be preferable for the NT to look to the introduction of any legislation by the Australian government before further considering such an amendment regarding disclosures to third parties, including the media.
The bill also provides for a disclosure relating to an MLA other than the Speaker. This is said to be an amendment about giving further options to whistle-blowers, particularly as a disclosure about the Speaker can be made to the commissioner, and internal disclosures, particularly, can be undermined.
The provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act regarding MLAs were based in the Victorian legislation, as per the NT Law Reform Committee recommendation. It was not intended to recreate an oversight body over MLAs, only to ensure people who made disclosures about MLAs were protected. Generally, members of parliament are not subject to obligations of investigation because of their independence, and are ultimately accountable to parliament and the electorate.
MLAs are not public servants except in the wider sense of serving the public. Speakers traditionally deal with complaints. They have independent responsibilities and must exercise their discretion in a neutral manner. A disclosure about an MLA should be left to the Speaker to decide if a disclosure comes within the legislation and how it should be dealt with.
In summary, there are appropriate government structures in place under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The solution to provide better delivery does not lie in legislative change as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, the government does not support this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, in closing debate, noting there is only two-and-a-half minutes left.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Two-and-a-half minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: Do you wish to finish your …
Mr MILLS: Yes I will finish, I will finish.
Madam SPEAKER: You can have an extension of time of 10 minutes.
Mr MILLS: No, I can do it in two-and-a-half minutes, thank you.
This is not the first time we have discussed this. I am sure the Attorney-General is aware I have taken on board some of the concerns raised in a previous incarnation. Rest assured, in the short time I have to speak all I need to say is I will be taking careful note of the objections you have outlined. I will incorporate those contributions which have been made, and continue to have another shot at it.
I need some further analysis of the reasons for lack of support from government, however, be prepared, I will be back. Nonetheless, there may be members in the Chamber who have not been convinced of the position put by the Attorney-General. I cannot presume upon the Chamber; I trust members have weighed this carefully and I urge them to support this amendment.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will complete the item of business before the Chair, and I put the question that the Assembly now adjourn.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about an annual event I attended on Saturday, 26 June 2010. The event I am talking about is India @ Mindil, well known to both locals and visitors to the Top End. I acknowledge the President of the Indian Cultural Society, Mr Rajeev Sharma, and the members of the Indian community who worked hard to put together a wonderful event which showcases the exciting and vibrant Indian culture, beautifully set under the stars at Mindil Beach.
India @ Mindil has been held since 1997, and has grown every year. It is one of the iconic multicultural events in the Northern Territory, and Australia’s largest Indian cultural festival. While at the event, I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs Geets Neelam Soni, who was the special guest dance artist/teacher visiting from Mumbai. Ms Soni is known for her starring role in the film Boogie Woogie. In addition to performing four dances at the event, Ms Soni also took the opportunity to train some of the local Indian dance performers, and they did a fantastic job. From the very youngest to the more mature, in the space of two weeks she had enthused them with such joy of performance, such rhythm, I was almost tempted to take lessons. Unfortunately, Ms Soni had to go back to India. Hopefully, she will back next year, and maybe I can go to some of the lessons. She did a great job and she was a great dancer herself, obviously, very well trained. She was a great asset to this year’s India @ Mindil.
It was fantastic to be in attendance at India @ Mindil and indulge in their culture through a variety of traditional performances, including Indian music and dancing. There were approximately 30 food and specialty stalls, as well as demonstrations, and arts and craft of Indian culture. It was great to see my friends, Mr and Mrs Ghosh. Mrs Ghosh is a very experienced sitar player. She studied under the famous Ravi Shankar. Her husband accompanies her on another instrument. She had an ensemble there. Their music was very varied, from traditional pieces to more contemporary pieces, and it was a joy to listen to this feast of culture.
People coming from India to the Northern Territory are predominantly from northern and central India. Many migrated to the Northern Territory in the 1970s as they recognised Darwin provided employment opportunities. By the early 1980s the Indian community in Darwin, comprising approximately six families, were joined by the arrival of people of Indian decent from Fiji, Malaysia and Singapore. Today, the Indian community in the Northern Territory includes a diverse range of people, including settlers from southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. These new migrants have been attracted by job opportunities in the Northern Territory and, as I said, the great Territory lifestyle.
Someone who has spent much time from the 1970s and 1980s onwards is my good friend Dr Ganeesh Ramdoss from Nightcliff, who is very well known amongst the Nightcliff community. He, his mother, and sister have contributed much to the community over many years. There are many people working in professional positions in the health sector, too numerous to mention, and in a range of other professions such as engineering. There are also many others in business and the academic field, really contributing to the Northern Territory.
In the past, students from India pursued higher education at American and British universities. Many students are now choosing to study in Australia, including at Charles Darwin University. The harmony we have in Darwin with various cultures is a great point for students to come to Darwin. Difficulties have been reported in the Indian press about some of the southern states; I am not going to comment on that. People are very welcome in Darwin, they feel very welcome. There is a community to support them and, of course, we have an excellent institution in Charles Darwin University.
I am proud to say the Northern Territory government, through the Office of Multicultural Affairs, has supported this event and will continue to do so. I congratulate the Indian Cultural Society performers and volunteers for all their hard work and enthusiasm in bringing this event together. I thank you for the opportunity to talk about India @ Mindil in my speech tonight.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on a very unusual group of people in my electorate. I would say, very delicately, this group of people is very weird, indeed. What I am talking about is the establishment of the Rural Tripe Club, which is coordinated through my electorate office. This group of very strange people came together through my contact with the lovely fellow Eean Thorne. Eean is a member of Probus, which is a community service activity of the Rotary Club. Probus meets the needs of retirees by providing opportunities to keep their minds active, expand their interests, stay healthy through activities like eating tripe, benefit from training programs, network between like-minded people, and enjoy the fellowship of new friends. Probus can provide members of the community with fresh ideas to enrich and fulfil their lives in retirement.
Back to the tripe club - Probus people are not the weird ones. The tripe club in the rural area has been set up under the guidance of the Probus Club, and Eean Thorne in particular. Tripe is the name commonly given to the stomach tissue of the ruminant animals such as oxen, cows, deer, buffalo, sheep, goats and llama. However, generally, tripe today is from cows. These beasts have four stomachs through which their food undergoes different stages of digestion. I can see, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you are very interested in my adjournment tonight, so I will continue.
From the first rumen comes the blanket tripe, so named because of its pile. It varies in thickness and is often accompanied with a layer of fat which needs to be removed. The second stomach is the reticulum, which produces the honeycomb tripe generally preferred by cooks because it keeps its shape during cooking and holds, on its textured surface, the sauce in which it is cooked. Tripe from the third stomach, the omasum, is known as bible, book, or seam tripe. Tripe from the fourth stomach, the abomasum, is reed tripe – glandular tripe – which is rarely used. Sound delicious, do they not?
This club has met a few times at the Virginia Tavern, and I thank Damien O’Brien for supporting the club and encouraging his chef to cook the delicious meals. At first the chef, Trevor, was hesitant as, by his own admission, he had not cooked tripe before. He said he had cooked every other parts of all manner of beast, but not tripe. Through some careful cajoling and encouragement, Trevor has produced some absolutely delicious tripe meals I am told. I would not know, as I do not eat cow stomach linings, and can see no reason, given the cow has perfectly good legs and steaks attached to them to eat.
People who have come along to these lunches have a lovely time tucking into tripe in Guinness, which Trevor specially designed for the group, curry tripe from Sri Lanka, Venetian tripe from Italy, Madrid-style tripe and, of course, the old favourite tripe in white sauce and onions, which is a must at every luncheon.
These luncheons attract a wide cross-section of people including Joy, who owns the lovely Xanadu Retreat at Humpty Doo; Lyn, the bonsai expert; Dorothy from Berry Springs; Noel, the goat farmer – see Gerry, goat tripe – and Raine, the bush fairy who breeds rabbits. Even Trish, my electorate officer, eats tripe. Of course, Eean is there with his many friends from the Tripe Club from Darwin who travel to the Rural Tripe Club lunches. The Darwin Tripe Club has upwards of 40 people attending their lunches. The rural club has about 15 members at the moment and is growing. They meet on a bi-monthly basis and thoroughly enjoy themselves.
They are, indeed, a mad bunch in the rural area. This tripe club has brought together people from all backgrounds, breeding, and lifestyle and one thing they have in common is tripe. I say to them: happy eating, but count me out.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to adjourn tonight to highlight the great work being done by the staff and clients of Bindi Incorporated in Alice Springs, formerly known as the Bindi Centre. It was my great pleasure to visit Bindi recently to see firsthand the terrific projects being undertaken at their Elder Street premises in Alice Springs. I was also very impressed to hear about their plans for the future, which involved expanding on the services they already deliver to people with disabilities in the Central Australian community.
Director Stephen Waterbury, who has been on board since earlier this year, and Business Development Manager, Dave Ezard, have great plans for the future of Bindi. I thank them and their staff for taking the time to show me around the facility.
Many people around the Territory are probably familiar with some of the products made at Bindi. The metal and wooden tuckerboxes are extremely popular; you would not go camping without one. Their outdoor furniture also has a well deserved reputation for quality. I was particularly impressed by their work reconditioning old pallets for local businesses - what a great recycling project.
The very impressive workshop area where these products are made offers rewarding and supported employment for people with disabilities. Workshop supervisor, Rodney Ingram, and his staff do a terrific job, and I urge fellow members who go bush to get a Bindi tuckerbox.
Bindi Incorporated currently has 34 supported employment positions in its Disability Enterprise program covering the workshop, contract area and art studio. It was wonderful to visit the very busy contracts area and meet people working there, including the very busy Business Enterprise Manager, Karen Chambers. In this area, Bindi offers services including mail-outs, shredding - which I have used for my electorate office - and participates in recycling initiatives, including making products from old newspapers and desk calendars.
Bindi has also recently entered into a contractual arrangement to provide services to local business, Colemans Printing. There is also an artists collective operating under the Bindi umbrella, where some very talented local artists are nurtured and supported by Arts Coordinator, Matt Goff. Work by Bindi artists is exhibited nationally and internationally. I have to say, I loved the bird paintings and the very Centralian truck paintings I saw. The hundreds of visitors to Alice Springs next week for the Truckies Reunion will be keen on these particular paintings.
Through these business and enterprise opportunities, Bindi is moving away from reliance on government funding to a certain degree of financial independence. The profits from these enterprises will help support Bindi’s expansion into bigger premises and more programs.
Bindi not only provides meaningful employment for people with disabilities, it also offers a range of creative and interactive programs. Under the Northern Territory government-funded day options program, clients participate in varied activities such as gardening, art and craft, bushwalking and cooking. Under the guidance of Day Services Program Manager, Fiona Stokes, this program also supports people to gain the skills necessary to obtain employment.
I was also very interested in the plans for the Bindi band. It seems there are some very talented musicians amongst the staff and some very keen musicians amongst the clients, with plans to take to the stage. I look forward to hearing about the band’s success at a future community event.
I again thank the Bindi staff for showing me around. I particularly mention Vanessa Stokes and Anna Typuszak; program support workers, Sebastian Hall, Arnold Woodbury, Alecia McNuff and Hiley Diweula, and also to the support workers who do a fantastic job, Hannah Treacey, Cecile Pedersen, Michael Walker, Norm Eastwood and Colin Tilmouth.
There was a real sense of optimism about the future of Bindi backed up by some very sound plans, which made it a pleasure to visit. I would urge all my colleagues to look at the services offered by Bindi, particularly those in Central Australia, and I recommend local businesses look at them too, as well as some of the opportunities working with Bindi may offer.
I would like to talk about the Parks area of my portfolio and reflect on the career of a very accomplished scientist and policy advisor within my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, who has recently retired.
Dr Peter Whitehead has retired after 33 years of working in the Northern Territory public sector, with 40 years in the public service overall. Dr Whitehead’s working career began in the Commonwealth Department of Transport in 1970, and in 1977 he moved to Darwin to take up a position with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. It was in this capacity Dr Whitehead was instrumental in the negotiations through self-government, to set up and form the Northern Territory Department of Law where he worked until 1984.
It was at that point, and in an era where career change was not so fashionable, Dr Whitehead embarked on a quite radical transformation to follow his passion for science and conservation. It was in this period, while working for the former Conservation Commission, that Dr Whitehead conducted significant research on wetlands including magpie geese; research that has stood the test of time and continues to underpin the very successful management programs for the species.
Over the last couple of decades, Dr Whitehead worked collaboratively with government agencies, academic institutions, and Indigenous landholders in the fields of natural and cultural resource management, wildlife conservation, and Indigenous economic development. His hard work is held in very high regard locally, nationally, and internationally, and his contribution to policy development in the natural resources area will be sorely missed. Dr Whitehead brought a particular depth to policy analysis, coupled with detailed scientific understanding, which is very rare indeed.
Fortunately for all of us, Dr Whitehead’s skills will not be entirely lost to Territorians. I understand he will continue to work with Charles Darwin University assisting Indigenous Territorians reach their aspiration for livelihoods built on wise, natural, resource management.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Northern Territory government and Territorians, I thank Dr Whitehead for his outstanding contributions to the Northern Territory over many years. I wish him all the best for his future endeavours.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to correct the record on something I said during Question Time today. During Question Time I inadvertently transposed two words which unintentionally altered the meaning of the question I was asking.
The source of my question was a quotation from a Southern Districts footballer which was contained in the Northern Territory News of 28 January 2010. Contained in my question was the sentence:
The words should have been:
This is an example of how a couple of words put in the wrong place can bring about a sentence with an entirely different meaning. I regret making that mistake at the time, and hope the inference contained has not caused any grief. It was certainly not my intention to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, my adjournment debate tonight is about Girraween Primary School farm, which is relatively new; it is only 10 years old. Since its inception the school has gone on in leaps and bounds. In fact, this year, it won the Power and Water School Melaleuca Environment Award.
The recent Sustainable School in Action Field Day at Girraween school was also typical of the get-up-and-go attitude of this school. It was a huge success where students showed community members, parents, and other schools what they have learned in the school farm and how important it is to the school.
The school farm was the initiative of a teacher, Robyn Tidswell, in 2007. With the support of school staff and parents, the students have built the farm from raised bed vegetable gardens with chook tractors, to a small farm with stock including Brahman calves - and I saw them the other day and they are pretty healthy - buffalo calves, pigs, chickens - they are the star attraction and I am not biased - ducks, geese and goats. Currently, the produce being harvested by students from the farm includes corn, tomatoes, beans, eggplants, cucumber, spinach, cabbage, beetroot, bok choy, capsicum, pumpkin, bananas, passionfruit, dragon fruit, paw paw, pineapples and herbs. That is not a bad list of fruit and vegetables from a small farm in a rural school.
Students from preschool to Year 6 are involved in every aspect of the farm from planning, building, and constructing enclosures and shelters to preparing terrace garden beds, sowing crops, caring for animals, harvesting, value-adding and selling produce. In fact, you can buy half a dozen eggs at a reasonable price from the school. If anyone wants some farm fresh eggs, pop down to Girraween Primary School.
A butterfly farm has been built by students. They need a few more butterflies, and I am sure butterflies will come in as soon as word gets around. The students are learning about food stocks for the butterflies, and caterpillars are being established prior to stocking with a variety of butterfly species.
Teachers are using the farm to introduce students to the life cycle of plants and animals, and investigate ideas such as sustainability and living globally. This valuable teaching tool is being used in an effective way, showing students the real life applications of what they are learning. Not only are students learning about sustainability, they have also shown real development in their social skills, their self-esteem, confidence, and public speaking.
I was shown the garden two weeks ago, when they had their Sustainable School in Action Field Day. The students who showed me their garden were proud as punch of their achievements. An interesting thing occurred - I cannot remember the student’s name, unfortunately. I went to look at the pumpkins - I used to grow pumpkins out bush. A problem with the bigger varieties of pumpkins is if you do not have enough bees they do not pollinate and you have to do it by hand. In fact, at Daly River they used to call it ‘we are marrying the pumpkins’, and they had a word for that. I said this to the young girl and she said: ‘Yes, that is exactly what we do’. This was about 8.30 am to 9 am, when the pollen is at its best - she picked a male flower, looked for the female flower, and stuck it on top. That is the way they produce their pumpkins. When there is a shortage of bees, which sometimes happens in the rural area, you can get around the problem and still get a good crop of pumpkins.
They took a real interest; they understood what it was about. These two young people were really keen on the activities of the school. Not only were they keen on those activities, they were so proud to show visitors what they had done. That is great; that is the self-esteem and confidence which is important with this type of activity.
I am looking forward to helping the school community in future plans for the farm, which include a new outdoor learning centre to complement the school farm. This centre will expand teaching opportunities and hands-on learning. There will be an expansion of the horticultural area to include rare and Indigenous fruit trees; they will build a new permanent animal shelter, and extend the vegetable garden to allow for more produce to be value-added for sale and used in preparation of healthy meals.
The Chair of the school council, Phil Hausler, works in the department of Resources and has a good knowledge of agriculture. He is also helping out as a hands-on school council chairman. With people like Phil and Robyn Tidswell working with these children, you know whatever they do is going to be successful. It gives the school a great feeling; it is not just bricks and mortar. It is a school with activities which very much relate to the rural area and kids can relate to. When you see the kids’ faces and how much they want to show you what they have done, you know there are good things happening.
Congratulations to all those people involved, and to all the teachers as well; without their support these things would not happen. Congratulation to the school kids for doing something good for the community. It is a good feeling going there, and I say well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students accompanied by Ms Michele Jones and Ms Joanne Forest. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Telstra Telecommunications Facility, Larapinta, Alice Springs
Telstra Telecommunications Facility, Larapinta, Alice Springs
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 142 petitioners praying that the construction of the Telstra telecommunications facility at Lot 8090, Larapinta, Alice Springs be stopped. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To Gerry McCarthy, member for Barkly, the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We, the undersigned, respectfully call upon the Northern Territory government to take action to stop the construction of the proposed Telstra Telecommunications facility - Lot 8090, Larapinta, Alice Springs.
The construction of a 30 m tower with a 45 m diameter footprint on this highly visible ridge line will unreasonably detract from the amenity of the locality and set a negative precedent.
We, the undersigned, respectfully encourage the Northern Territory government to actively encourage Telstra and other telecommunications providers to find alternate possible locations to put the necessary infrastructure where they do not detract upon the visual amenity of our pristine West MacDonnell Ranges.
Heavy Vehicle Diversion in Katherine CBD
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 605 petitioners praying that a heavy vehicle diversion beside Railway Terrace in Katherine CBD be stopped. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that planning for the heavy vehicle diversion beside Railway Terrace (Option 4) in the Katherine CBD be stopped, and that alternate options be considered.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the minister immediately cease to support the heavy vehicle diversion in the Railway Terrace precinct. We, the undersigned, believe that the Railway Terrace Precinct must remain a green space and heritage area for the future generations of Katherine.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members a response to petition No 30 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 30
Second Development Application Wooliana Road, Daly River
Date presented: 29 April 2010
Presented by: Mr Knight
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 19 August 2010
Date response received: 17 August 2010
Date response presented: 18 August 2010
Response:
Thank you for your letter dated 4 May 2010 seeking my response to Petition Number 30 that was read in the Assembly on the same day, requesting that a development application over NT Portions 2812 and 2813 in the Daly River locality be rejected.
On 1 May 2009, an application was lodged to develop NT Portions 2812 and 2813 Wooliana Road, Daly River locality for the purpose of 40 multiple dwellings. The application was lodged in accordance with Interim Development Control Order No 20, which imposes development controls for multiple dwellings at a density greater than one dwelling per eight hectares.
Public exhibition of the proposed development was undertaken in accordance with the Planning Act and the Department of Lands and Planning has provided me with a report that details all matters that must be taken into consideration.
After carefully considering the application, the report provided by the department, the public submissions and the petition, I have decided not to approve the development.
TERRITORY INSURANCE OFFICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 123)
(Serial 123)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the governance and administration provisions for the Territory Insurance Office, TIO. Most notably, the bill will remove the TIO Board from the Motor Accidents Compensation (MAC) appeals process; remove the role of the MAC Compensation Contributions Commissioner from the Motor Vehicles Act; reduce the TIO Board size from six to three members, and abolish the role of the MAC Board member.
TIO is a statutory corporation that offers banking and insurance products on a commercial basis in competition with privately owned business. TIO also administers the Territory’s compulsory motor accident compensation scheme on behalf of the government.
There are two key pieces of legislation that establish the administrative and governance frameworks for TIO and the MAC scheme, namely, the Territory Insurance Office Act and the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, (MAC Act).
In 2008 and 2009, I approved Treasury and TIO jointly reviewing the TIO Act and the MAC Act focusing on statutory and governance framework issues. The TIO Act and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 implements the recommendations of the reviews. The review of the TIO Act identified a number of amendments aimed at improving the governance and administration of TIO, including aligning the governance and administration arrangements with the Government Owned Corporations Act and the Corporations Act 2001, and adopting contemporary practices in relation to penalties and governance guidelines. The bill seeks to implement these measures.
In 2006, a range of governance and statutory measures were introduced to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the management of the MAC scheme. These included the establishment of the statutory fund to hold the assets of the MAC scheme separate to those of TIO’s commercial activities, and the appointment of a member to the TIO Board to specifically represent the interests of the MAC scheme. In addition, the TIO Board also introduced measures to reinforce the separation of the MAC business from TIO’s commercial activities through a service level agreement and the prudential framework for TIO was enhanced to provide a greater level of oversight of TIO and MAC operations and performance.
The reviews highlighted that, given all these measures are now in place, the need for a specific MAC member on the TIO Board no longer exists. Further, continuation of this requirement could contribute to less effective decision-making and reduce flexibility in identifying individuals with the necessary skills and expertise to effectively manage TIO as a corporate entity. As such, the bill removes the statutory requirement to appoint a MAC member. Nonetheless, accountability of the management of the MAC scheme will continue to be improved through the separation of MAC and TIO business at board meetings, and strengthened performance reporting requirements in the statements of corporate intent. These measures will be implemented administratively by TIO.
Furthermore, the proposed bill reduces the required minimum number of board members from six to three. As responsible minister, this will increase the flexibility I will have in appointing a board with the necessary expertise and experience.
The bill also amends the TIO Act to allow monies to be transferred from the MAC fund into the Central Holding Authority for the purpose of promoting road safety. Currently, amounts held in the MAC fund may only be paid into an appropriate agency operating account for this purpose. Requiring funds to be paid into the CHA and then distributed to the relevant agency will strengthen the accountability for road safety funding, and does not alter the current total quantum of road safety funding provided from the MAC fund. Any change to the amount of MAC funds allocated for road safety would continue to be a matter for government.
The bill also amends the MAC Act to streamline the appeals process by removing the current role of the TIO Board in determining applications for compensation. It also introduces a more rigorous internal review process. Currently, where an application for compensation under the MAC Act, or for a variation in a benefit, is rejected by TIO the claimant can refer the matter to the Designated Person (DP) for review. If the claimant is aggrieved by the DP’s determination, the claimant can lodge an appeal with the TIO Board. If the board does not decide in the claimant’s favour, the matter can then be appealed to the MAC Tribunal, whose decision is final. The MAC Tribunal is constituted by a Supreme Court Judge and operates in accordance with statutory rules.
TIO Board members are not appointed as judicial officers and need not have the necessary legal and medical expertise to review decisions taken by specialist TIO employees. Nonetheless, under the MAC Act, the full TIO Board is required to consider each claimed referred to it in full.
Removing the role of the TIO Board from the appeals process, while maintaining the existing avenues of appeal to both the DP and the MAC Tribunal, would provide for a more timely and effective process for the resolution of claims. In addition, to help achieve a timely resolution of relatively minor grievances, TIO will introduce an optional internal review process administered by a TIO employee with specialist MAC Act claims expertise. Aggrieved claimants can opt to have their claim reviewed through this process prior to seeking resolution through the DP. It is expected that this process will significantly expedite applications for compensation under the MAC Act, without removing the claimant’s right to review and appeal of decisions. As mentioned before, the ultimate right of appeal to the independent MAC Tribunal will remain.
Finally, the bill amends the Motor Vehicles Act to remove the role of the Compensation Contributions Commissioner. The role of the commissioner was introduced into the Motor Vehicles Act in 2006 to independently determine annual contribution amounts for the MAC scheme. MAC contribution amounts are paid by motorists at the time of registering a vehicle. Prior to this, contribution amounts were determined by the government, with reference to recommendations of the TIO Board.
The commissioner is required to make determinations in consultation with TIO and me in accordance with the prudential parameters established in the Motor Vehicle Regulations. However, shortcomings have been identified with the arrangements since the commissioner’s appointment in January 2007, namely, that the prudential parameters for contribution determinations are not responsive to short-term changes in MAC claims costs and investment returns, and that the process for making determinations is administratively convoluted.
As such, the bill removes the role of the commissioner and implements simplified arrangements for determining MAC contribution amounts. These include automatic annual indexation of contribution amounts supplemented by external export reviews every three years to ensure contribution levels remain sufficient to ensure the longer-term financial sustainability of the MAC scheme. Where circumstances dictate, such as a significant economic downturn or period of market volatility I, as minister responsible, may request the review to be undertaken more frequently. In such circumstances, contribution amounts may be increased by a rate different from the indexation amount for a given year where an independent review indicates that it would be prudent to do so.
I believe the amendments before the House today would enhance the governance and accountability framework for the TIO and MAC scheme.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before I adjourn I place on the record my thanks to the Treasurer for the briefing yesterday which was highly informative and useful. I move that debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
(MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND UNFITNESS FOR TRIAL) BILL
(Serial 122)
(MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND UNFITNESS FOR TRIAL) BILL
(Serial 122)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. Part IIA provides a regime to deal with persons being tried by the Supreme Court who are believed to be unfit to stand trial, or whose mental competence to commit a crime is an issue.
Relevant to the bill being introduced today, Part IIA empowers the Supreme Court to order that a person who is found to be unfit to stand trial or to be mentally incompetent may be subject to supervision. The court may make a custodial or non-custodial supervision order which provides for the treatment and management of a supervised person.
When passing Part IIA in 2002, parliament intended that, where practicable, supervised persons under a custodial supervision order should be held in custody somewhere other than prison, and that the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Families would have responsibility for their treatment and management. If the person had to be held in prison, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice would have this role.
That prison should be the last resort is evident from section 43ZA of the Criminal Code Act, which provides that:
- The court must not make a custodial supervision order committing the accused person to custody in a prison unless it is satisfied that there is no practicable alternative given the circumstances of the person.
The Criminal Code Act provides that the court can make a custodial supervision order committing a person to custody in ‘an appropriate place’ other than a prison.
To give effect to a custodial supervision order there must be the ability to enforce the order by restraining the supervised person if necessary. Police and prison officers have this ability by virtue of their office, but no other group of people does.
The practical inability of the court to make a custodial supervision order committing a person to an appropriate place other than a prison was revealed in March 2010 when the Chief Justice, Hon Brian R Martin, ruled in the matter of R v Ebatarinja, that the use of restraint by any person other than police or prison officers is not authorised by Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. The bill amends Part IIA to empower the Supreme Court to authorise, in its discretion, the use of restrictive practices to enforce a custodial supervision order, or to prevent the supervised person from harming him or herself or another person.
The amendments will give full effect to the intended policy behind the legislation. I emphasise that the court will have the power to make the order in its discretion. As it currently does when deciding to make either a custodial supervision order or a non-custodial order, the court must assess the risks, both to the community and the supervised person, of making the order.
In some respects these amendments are an interim measure to provide for an enforceable custodial supervision order in a place other than a prison to be made. It is interim in the sense when a secure mental health and behavioural unit is built within the new prison, this will provide an appropriate place for at least some persons placed on a custodial supervision order. However, the amendments in the bill also provide more than an interim measure. They expand the options available to the court for dealing with supervised persons, either under custodial supervision orders or non-custodial supervision orders, providing a ‘step down’ from prison to some other custodial supervision order, so supervised persons have a better chance of success on their order and can, potentially, be fully reintegrated into the community.
Fundamentally, this bill provides an alternative to inappropriate incarceration in prisons of people who have not been found guilty of an offence. The bill provides only persons authorised by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Families will be able to use reasonable force to enforce a court order, or to prevent a person harming him or herself or anyone else. Any use of reasonable force or containment of a supervised person must be conducted in accordance with the supervision directions made by the CEO of the Department of Health and Families and gazetted as a statutory instrument, thus giving it the force of law.
Importantly, the supervision directions will incorporate provisions for the independent oversight of the use of reasonable force in order to protect supervised persons, and to ensure such measures are used in accordance with best practice.
The bill also inserts an indemnity provision indemnifying persons, other than police or prison officers authorised to use reasonable force, from criminal or civil liability, provided the use of reasonable force was in good faith in the exercise of a power or function under Part IIA of the Criminal Code Act. The indemnity provision does not affect any liability the Territory would have in respect of an act or omission of an authorised person.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to correct ambiguities and procedural issues which have been picked up by practitioners in this field, and judges, since the introduction of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act. These amendments include:
giving the court the power to adjourn a hearing for an application to vary or revoke a supervision order;
allowing the court to backdate a supervision order to the date the supervised person was first taken into custody;
allowing the court to adjourn a major review beyond the expiry of a fixed term, because it is often the case the court cannot complete the review in the time frame so the court needs the power to adjourn the review while still keeping the supervision in force;
deleting the word ‘expires’ in section 43ZK in relation to a supervision order because a supervision order cannot expire. A supervision order is of an indefinite duration and can only be revoked by a court; and
allowing legal counsel to use their independent discretion in any hearing under Part IIA where an accused or supervised person is unable to instruct them.
The bill sets out a transitional clause which will make the amendments to allow adjournments and the making of interim orders to the bill retrospective so they apply to any proceedings in relation to a supervision order that have already been commenced. The remainder of the clauses in the bill deal with minor amendments of a statute law revision nature.
A number of NT government departments were consulted during the development of the bill, in particular, the Department of Health and Families. The Director of Public Prosecutions, NAAJA, and the NT Legal Aid Commission were also consulted. The Department of Justice will keep stakeholders informed of the progress of these amendments and of the timing of their commencement, which will take place after the supervision directions have been gazetted.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MINERAL TITLES BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
Continued from 29 April 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for facilitating a briefing on this bill. Thanks to the staff from the minister’s office and the department for providing those briefings on not only the bill as a whole but the committee stage amendments which will be presented to the House today.
The Mineral Titles Bill has been a long time coming. There was talk of new mining legislation in the late 1990s by the then CLP government. The review of the act has been spoken of by this government since about 2002. Some eight years later we have a bill which I am guessing will take quite a deal of time to have effect by virtue of the length of time it will take for the regulations to be constructed. I hope it does not take too long, minister. I will be asking, in the committee stage, for an indication of how long these regulations might take.
I note there are a number of consequential amendments flowing from the introduction of this bill, and I am pleased they have been presented to the House this week. I do not want to appear critical for the sake of being critical, but eight years is a very long time to be waiting for new legislation of such importance to the Territory. In fact, one could describe the pace of this bill in much the same way as I describe the pace of the geothermal legislation - that being somewhat tectonic. Eight years it has taken. If you want to use the tectonic plates as an analogy - building up pressure, bumping and grinding against each other until the earthquake, on 29 April this year, when the bill was introduced. I daresay we will be seeing another two years or so of after-shocks while the matters arising, those consequential amendments and regulations, are sorted out.
However, we have a bill now. To some extent the length of time taken to bring this bill to parliament has served a purpose; the bill has been consulted very widely, probably to the point of ad nauseam. Even during the briefing I received on this bill it was iterated the bill had been over-consulted and industry was at the point of saying: ‘Just present the bill and have it passed’. Industry wants this bill done and dusted. Unfortunately, they will have to wait for some period of time, I imagine.
I have consulted with industry on this bill, seeking the input of those interested parties on matters which should be brought to the attention of government. I am pleased to say there are only a few issues which have been raised with me, and I will canvass those both in this debate and, later, in the committee stage. With that, I indicate a desire to take this to committee.
Once this bill commences as an act the current Mining Act will be repealed. The transitional matters are dealt with in Part 12, Division 1, and appear to quite adequately deal with matters which might reasonably arise. Those transitional arrangements deal with continuation of authorisation for construction at clause 195. I am pleased to see provision has been made in clause 196 for the continuation of fossicking areas, which had previously been declared under section 131(1) of the current act. That, at least, is a step in the right direction for those who fossick, both locals and visitors. I will return to speak about fossicking later.
I note clauses 197, 198, 199 and 200 cover the transitional matters as they relate to existing applications. These transitional arrangements are extremely important for those who have submitted applications for licences or permits under the current act. I have examined these clauses and I give credit to the department, and Parliamentary Counsel, who had a hand in constructing them. They appear to be quite comprehensive and leave little to chance; although I will say there are some clauses which concern me.
Those clauses are 198(3)(c)(ii) and 199(2)(b). Those clauses are worded almost exactly the same. They relate to the grant or renewal of corresponding applications, or the grant or renewal where there is no corresponding application respectively. Those clauses say, and I quote inter alia:
The minister must deal with or decide the application
(a) as prescribed by regulation; or
(b) if there is no regulation relating to the particular application - as the minister considers appropriate, having regard to the principles for transition mentioned in section 193(2).
First, there will need to be a suitable regulation drafted which must prescribe the course of action for the minister to follow. Second, in the principles for transition at clause 193(2), there are six principles numbered (a) to (f) which give the minister what I would describe as a fairly subjective set of rules by which he will approve the grant or renewal of an application under this new act.
The clause says:
- 193 Principles for transition
(1) A regulation or decision made for this part must be consistent with the principles for transition to the provisions of this act.
(f) to allow sufficient time to enable holders of non-compliant titles or non-compliant existing interests to meet requirements under this act.
Ordinarily, I would not be overly concerned about having a transitional arrangement such as this in place. However, I am concerned there appears to be no avenue of appeal for a person who, by virtue of a decision made by the minister under 198(3)(c)(ii) or 199(2)(b), must have that application dealt with in a way the minister considers appropriate.
My next concern is how long it will take before the regulations are constructed, and how long it will take for this bill to be passed into law. How long will this take? I suspect quite some time. It is not inconceivable that regulations for such an important act could take up to two years. I say this in light of other examples where we are waiting for what seems an inordinate amount of time for regulations to come into force, the Plant Health Act being one.
The Plant Health Act, I believe, is not yet in force despite being introduced on 30 October 2008 and passed in this House on 27 November 2008. I assume this act has not come into force because the regulations are not yet complete, and I hope the minister can correct me if I am wrong. We are 20 months down the track from passing the act with no regulations, and it is a strong indication there is no sense of urgency within government to have these matters dealt with.
Another example, the Building Amendment Bill introduced on urgency during estimates this year is still not in force because there is a delay putting together prescribed documents, I believe. How can we have a bill introduced on urgency still waiting for prescribed documents to enable it to come into force? Again, there is no sense of urgency.
In raising this point I need to impress upon the government subordinate legislation which needs to be brought in as a result of new legislation must be done as quickly as possible. I realise there will be, and always is, extensive consultation around the formulation of regulations for important acts such as the new Mineral Titles Bill; nonetheless, there needs to be a sense of urgency.
Looking at the Serious Crime Control Bill, and you would remember this is the bikie legislation the government touted as so important to the Northern Territory, we are almost a year down the track from the bill being passed and, lo and behold, no regulations there either. You will excuse my cynicism around how long it might take to get regulations under this bill …
Mr Elferink: Good point.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I digress a little; I hope I have made that point quite clear.
That is my concern, and I believe it is valid. The minister will be lending himself to a more subjective decision-making process in relation to the appeal process. That is an issue of and by itself, however may also present as an issue around consistency, fairness or transparency and, as I pointed out, the issue around the lack of appeal.
The bill seems to have this underlying paradigm of ‘use it or lose it’; I do not really have a problem with that. I want to deal with some areas at the back of the bill, and then I will move into the remainder of the bill.
Division 4 of Part 12 raises some concerns as it deals with non-compliant existing interests at clause 203. Going through that, clause 203(1) relates to the types of existing non-compliant interests being:
- (a) a mineral claim;
- (b) a right or entitlement continued in force by section 191(19) or (20) of the repealed act …
which relates to the entitlements of the person holding a miner’s right issued under sections 9 and 10 of the current act; and
- (c) a title continued in force by section 191(28) of the repealed act.
Clause 203(2) says:
- The non-compliant existing interest continues in force and has effect after the commencement day as if this act had not commenced.
I am okay with that. Clause 203(3) says:
- However, as soon as practicable after the commencement day, the minister must decide to take one of the following actions in relation to the non-compliant existing interest:
(a) convert it to the mineral title the minister considers appropriate;
(b) facilitate its conversion to another interest in relation to the land to which it relates …
- (c) accept its surrender;
(d) cancel it.
Clause 203(4) goes on to say:
- For subsection (3), the minister must give the holder of the non-compliant existing interest a notice stating the following:
(c) the holder may accept the minister’s decision, or make a submission to the minister, within the time specified in the notice;
(d) the holder is entitled to a review of the minister’s decision as prescribed by regulation;
(e) any other information required by regulation.
Clause 203(5) says:
- The times specified under subsection (4)(b) and (c) must be sufficient to enable the holder of the non-compliant existing interest to obtain the information and fully consider the minister’s decision, taking into account the nature of the information and non-compliant interest.
I want to turn my mind to the part around the mineral claims. These claims exist presently by virtue of Part VII of the current act. I do not want to go into too much detail per se, however, mineral claims and miners’ rights will disappear when this bill becomes an act and is in force. Effectively, these will become non-compliant existing interests as per the new act. An example is the Grove Hill region near Pine Creek, and there are many others across the Territory. According to the new act, the minister will make a decision to convert that old title to a new title under the act, or assist in converting it to a new form of tenure, accept its surrender, or cancel the old title.
The minister makes a decision and the titleholder can either accept the decision or make a submission to the minister. This process vests an enormous amount of power in the minister, and one would hope he would get it right. A better approach might have been for the department to approach people with non-complying existing interests and gather submissions from them before the minister makes a decision. The minister may turn his mind to that in his closing speech.
I turn to other sections of the bill. These are fairly general sections, however, I want to cover them as it is important to, where possible in this House, digest this legislation then bring it back as lumps of information lay people can understand. There will be people listening to this who read legislation but do not fully understand it and leave it to us to interpret.
The definition of land has changed and is much clearer in its interpretation and clearly defines, through the Commonwealth Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act and, by extension, the Commonwealth Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973, which, if I read those correctly, extends the jurisdiction of Northern Territory lands to the three nautical mile limit.
The act binds the Crown, except in relation to the exploration for and extraction of extractive minerals for use on roads and other infrastructure. That section is clearly unambiguous, makes sense, and is consistent with the current legislation.
In general terms, there are two distinct mineral titles provided under the bill - titles relating to minerals and titles relating to extraction minerals, where minerals are defined as inorganic elements or compounds, organic carbonate compound, coal, ignite, oil, shale or salt. Extractive minerals are described as soil, sand, gravel, rock and peat. Peat was formally described as a mineral, although I do not know if we have any peat lands in the Northern Territory, do we?
Mr Wood: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We do. Thank you, member for Nelson. I note petroleum and water are not covered by this bill.
The following are all considered mineral titles, often abbreviated to titles within the act. There is a mineral exploration licence - an EL; a mineral exploration licence in retention - an ELR; a mineral lease - an ML; an extractive mineral exploration licence - an EMEL; an extractive mineral permit - an EMP; an extractive mineral lease - an EML, and a mineral authority, which is MA. Fossicking and preliminary exploration are not considered titles in this bill.
I will go through each one, and to interpret some of this legislation for lay people, exploration licences are covered by clauses 26 to 32. They may be granted for up to six years, and every two operational years the minister may reduce the number of blocks subject to an EL, but may decide not to do so on application of a titleholder. The title may be renewed at the end of the six years for no more than two years for any one extension.
An EL application on Aboriginal land - clause 62 - states a person cannot enter into negotiations with a land council for consent to access their land under an EL unless the potential titleholder has already applied for an EL and received consent from the minister to approach the land council. Therefore, an applicant has to have the EL approved by the minister before approaching the land council for consent to operate on that land.
The industry appears to be supportive of much of this bill, so I will point out rather than raise as an issue, the fact there are some quite significant and fundamental changes to the bill from the current act. In this particular clause it relates to the number of blocks, which has been halved from 500 blocks to a maximum of 250. The paradigm behind this change is consistent with my way of thinking and, provided by way of information in the briefing, relates to being able to move more companies through different parcels of land, there is less opportunity for warehousing, and it comes back to the ‘use it or lose it’ philosophy.
Moving on, exploration licences in retention, ELRs, are covered by clauses 33 to 39. The ELR allows a titleholder to designate an area within the EL as an area which contains a commercially viable deposit of minerals or extraction minerals, or an area which requires further feasibility. It is covered for a period of five years and is extended for periods of five years. The minister may cancel the ELR if the titleholder is unreasonably delaying the process that would lead to application of a mineral lease, an ML. That is the same kind of ‘use it or lose it’ thinking.
The minerals leases covered by clauses 40 to 45 allow a titleholder to mine and process the mineral within that title area. Mineral lease applications on Aboriginal land - a person must hold an EL or an ELR before they can apply for an ML on Aboriginal land, which is consistent with the process for exploration licences. There are a couple of exceptions to that particular provision which relate to a person applying who is a traditional owner of that land which is part of Ranger, Noranda or Pancontinental project areas.
The extractive mineral exploration licences, EMLs, are covered by clauses 46 to 49. They grant the titleholder the exclusive rights to explore for and apply for a permit to extract extractive minerals from the title area. The EMPs, extractive mineral permits, allow the titleholder to extract extractive minerals from the natural surface of the land. The area extractive minerals are removed from is to be less than 100 ha. The holder of an EML may mine for extractive minerals within the title area provided the land area does not exceed 100 ha.
Miners’ rights and preliminary exploration of land: miners’ rights under the Mining Act have been replaced in this bill with the concept of preliminary exploration of land. The miners’ right purchased from the department for, I believe, $100 these days, allows a person to conduct preliminary exploration, survey and reconnaissance work by non-intrusive and non-mechanical means to determine the exploration potential on any Territory land not subject to an exploration licence, or subject to an application for such a licence, and with the consent of a warden.
Out of interest, when I was a police officer at Maranboy in the late 1980s, which many in the House would know is an old mining area and had a significant tin mine in the early part of this century, police stations were able to issue miners’ rights. I was issued a miners’ right which, unfortunately, would now be an historical piece of paper on the wall once this bill comes into force.
The requirement for the miners’ right has been removed with the Mineral Titles Bill. A person may conduct preliminary explorations to determine the geological characteristics of the land, remove small samples from the land, or conduct airborne surveys - the latter with the consent of the minister. Only the use of hand-held, non-mechanical means other than GPS or metal detection devices are permitted by a person conducting preliminary exploration. If the land is vacant Crown land, pastoral land or native title land, the person conducting the preliminary exploration must give notice of their intention to conduct preliminary exploration to the occupier of the land. I am not going to touch deeply on issues around pastoral or native title land; I believe other members in the House will have a shot at that later.
There is no set amount of time notice has to be given to the occupier before the exploration, nor is there any requirement for the occupier to consent to the preliminary exploration. If the landowner does not reply to a request for consent within two months, consent is presumed to be granted. That is interesting, and I will repeat it for emphasis: if a person wishes to conduct preliminary exploration on land they need to seek the permission from the landowner; however, if the request for consent is not responded to within two months it is presumed the consent is granted. That means people on pastoral leases and other areas of the Northern Territory who are tardy with their responses to applications ought not be because permission will be presumed to be given if they have not responded within two months.
When preliminary exploration is to be conducted on private land, Aboriginal land, Aboriginal community living areas, or a park or reserve, the consent of the landowner is required. The landowner may impose reasonable conditions on the person conducting the preliminary exploration and cannot, unreasonably, withold consent for the preliminary exploration. If consent is withheld, the person seeking consent can dispute that and take it to the tribunal.
Again, this is all about opening up more parts of the Northern Territory and facilitating a fairly active regime of preliminary exploration across the Northern Territory, which makes perfect sense. The Northern Territory is still a young jurisdiction in mining and exploration, and there are plenty of exploration companies which would be quite pleased to conduct preliminary exploration in parts of the Northern Territory. This is important to the ongoing health of the Northern Territory economy, given mining royalties already account for 26% of our GSP. We need to expand our own source revenue base, and mining is an appropriate way to do that.
The person conducting preliminary exploration must receive written consent from the landowner before undertaking any activity on private or Aboriginal land. However, there is no time frame stated for how long before entry they must receive consent for access. The Queensland Mineral Titles Act requires consent to be given five working days before the intended time of entry. While the amount of private land is greater in Queensland, this would appear to be a commonsense provision to allow the landowner to move any stock, or make other arrangements for the land access requested. That might be something the department and minister may wish to take note of; it could well be included in regulation.
If a written reply is not received from the landowner within two months of giving notice of entry, the landowner is taken to have consented under clause 167. However, there appears to be no general ability for the landowner to revoke consent, which is an interesting provision. It is particularly concerning if the consent was presumed under clause 167 and the lack of reply was due to the owner’s absence or incapacity. I wonder if the minister is able to address that. I daresay I will ask a question about that in the committee stage.
Other parts of this bill have been raised with me by various groups or individuals. I believe the members for Goyder, Fong Lim and Nelson will canvass some of those issues around areas reserved from occupation, native title and fossicking.
I am aware, as a result of submissions made to the government on areas reserved from occupation by an individual in the Silkwood region of Adelaide River, the government will be proffering committee stage amendments to this bill. I have had discussions with the gentlemen who made those submissions to the government. I have had some discussions with the member for Nelson and received a briefing on those committee stage amendments this morning. Although they probably do not go all the way towards satisfying the submissions made, they go part way, and seem to be a sensible resolution to those issues.
I commend the gentlemen who made those submissions, Mr Michael Fonda. He is a terrific example of a passionate person in the Northern Territory who can and does move government. He proposed new clauses 112, 113 and 117 of the bill, backed with reasoned argument. It seems the minister has taken some of those suggestions on board, and is relatively satisfied with those submissions. Good on you, minister, for taking the time to consult with that gentleman and taking those issues on board.
I move to fossicking, although I know it will be covered further by other members in this debate. There are significant changes to the provisions of the new bill regulating fossicking. Under the Mining Act, a person is required to obtain a fossicker’s permit in order to fossick for minerals in a declared area within 1 m of the surface using non-mechanical means of detection and extraction. The fossicking must be for non-commercial means, occasional selling of minerals, but not as a profitmaking venture where the person’s whole or substantial income is derived from the trade of minerals extracted.
Certain minerals such as diamonds, fossils of invertebrate animals, or meteorite fragments cannot be fossicked for. The depth, means of fossicking, and non-commercial aspect remain unchanged by the Mineral Titles Bill, as does the restriction on fossicking diamonds, fossils of invertebrate animals, and meteorite fragments. The main change imposed by this bill is the fossicker’s permit is no longer required and a person can, with some restrictions, fossick on any land in the Territory.
The fossicker may fossick without restriction on vacant Crown land, a declared fossicking area, a proposed title area of an EL or EMEL, or the title area of an EMEL. The fossicker must first give notice to the occupier of a pastoral lease, and regulations may specify situations where a fossicker must obtain consent of the occupier; that was an issue canvassed in the briefing this morning with the department. If the landowner does not reply to a request for consent within two months, consent is presumed to be granted. I encourage people on pastoral leases to be vigilant for correspondence requesting applications to fossick.
An area of land subject to an EL other than gold - people may fossick on that land without giving notice of their intention or obtaining consent. There are no instructions to indicate whether consent is required from a landowner if a fossicker wishes to fossick on private land that is subject to an EL. Consent must be sought from the landowner in order to fossick on private land, but unlike the provisions for preliminary exploration, there is no need for the fossicker to comply with all reasonable requests of the landowner, only conditions imposed by the minister.
That is a salient point. This could possibly limit the ability of the two parties to negotiate limitations on the area to be accessed by a fossicker, such as not into particular cropping areas or stock paddocks, irrigation grounds, near sheds, or require the fossicker to backfill any holes created by fossicking. These will be conditions imposed by the minister rather than the landowner. Maybe this is something which needs to be enshrined in regulation: the degree of consultation that must be undertaken before the minister imposes those conditions. The landowner should have much to say in what they are.
There is scope for similar conditions to be provided by regulation, however, the rights of the landowner should be protected in legislation and they should be able to negotiate conditions of entry and activity of a fossicker on their private land. There also appears to be no ability for the landowner to revoke the consent, which is particularly concerning if consent was presumed under clause 167, but the lack of reply was due to the owner’s absence or incapacity.
Access under the Mining Act is essentially similar to the provisions of the Mineral Titles Bill. The main difference is the minister has a greater say over what is allowed than under the Mining Act. In the bill, the holder of a mineral title has right of access to land other than the land subject to the mineral title in order to access the land subject to the mineral title. They also have the right to construct a road over land, including private land, to access a council or Territory road, airstrip, railway line or waterway by the shortest practicable route. The committee stage amendments also refer to that, clarifying the position of the legislation.
The titleholder must apply to the minister if they require access to land outside the area subject to the mineral title; that makes sense. While they must inform any landowner of their intention to access the land, the minister does not need to take into consideration any objections by the landowner.
The Mineral Titles Bill has simplified the provisions for compensation to apply to all mineral titleholders rather than compensation provisions specific to each licence, grant or permit in the Mining Act. This seems to simplify the process. The old process was somewhat convoluted, and having provisions which apply specifically to each different title can create some confusion. That seems to be a sensible move. The ability for landholders to be compensated is essentially the same in the bill as in the Mining Act. Landholders have a general entitlement for compensation from the holder of a mineral title for damage to land or improvements on the land, or for damages caused by loss of use of that land or improvements. There is no specific provision for claiming compensation for personal injury. The claim for compensation must be made within three years from the activity which caused the damage, however a longer time may be allowed by the tribunal.
I am going to close there. Much of this bill cannot be covered in depth in this debate because of the length of the bill. The bill is largely accepted by industry and there are but a few people with issues which need to be raised with the government. I feel comfortable we have reached that point, although I believe some members will have other things to say.
The bill will be supported by the opposition today. I reiterate there is an expectation from industry this new bill be brought into force as quickly as possible. I urge the minister and the department to not delay the regulations for an inordinate amount of time as we have seen with other legislation.
Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks there.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say well done to the member for Katherine for the research and effort he has put into this bill. He does himself justice, and does us all proud on this side of the House with the way he has attacked and analysed this. He compared this government’s haste in delivering this bill to tectonic plate movements. Eight years in the making is an indictment on this government, but typical of this government. They promise things which never eventuate. There are so many examples of that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: They make promises and commitments; however, I am happy we are here eight years later debating this bill. Hear, hear for your quick and speedy actions, minister. Eight years is pretty quick movement by your government - well done.
I acknowledge a good friend of mine who is sitting in the gallery, Graham McMahon. He has brought his beautiful wife with him today to witness this debate. Graham is the chairman of the Amateur Prospectors’ Association in the Northern Territory and is a constituent of Fong Lim. As such, I have dealt with him because his association is very interested in this bill. Graham refers to himself as a metal detecting tourist. He sees this as a big issue in relation to tourism, and somehow we have to connect this up with mining.
To digress a little, several years ago I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, and we held an inquiry into the impediments to mineral exploration in Australia. Several interesting things came out of that inquiry. We eventually put out a report titled Between a Rock and a Hard Place which was reasonably well accepted by explorers and the mining industry across Australia. It had bipartisan support in the federal parliament; that is, all parties which were involved in that inquiry agreed with the outcomes and what was contained in that report.
We found several interesting things. What most struck me is the fact that many of the great mines we have in this country, many of the big resource developments, can be traced back to the scratcher, the prospector, the metal detector, the fossicker, the lapidarist, the gem hunters - prospectors, scratchers. There is a list of them. Mark Creasy, a very famous man who refers to himself as a scratcher, a prospector, is responsible for discovering the Bronzewing Mine in Western Australia. Several years ago he was named in the BRW rich list. He travels around looking for minerals and metals, prospecting. There are many others.
Kim Robinson, a geologist and a scratcher, started out hunting for gems in Western Australia. He founded a now listed company called Kagara Zinc which is worth several hundred million dollars. As I said, he started out hunting for gemstones in Western Australia and, whilst he found gemstones, as he said: ‘There was too much dirt in between them; they were too far and few between’. He turned his attention to gold and discovered the rich Bounty gold deposit in 1996. Bounty made his original fortune, and he went on to produce more than a million ounces of gold over the life of that mine. He did not stop there. He took Kagara, his company, into zinc and copper in Queensland. These days he still fossicks quite often, not just taking his metal detector and other equipment; he travels with his fishing rod and golf clubs as well.
The point is many of the great mines in this country have been founded by people like Kim Robinson and Mark Creasy. They are somewhat the exception to the rule, inasmuch as they are very wealthy now as a result of their prospecting activities, whereas the vast majority of people involved in metal detecting, prospecting, fossicking, are doing it as a hobby, as a bit of fun. However, you cannot undermine their impact on the mining industry because the reality is they play a vital role in mining.
Members will be aware I tabled two petitions last week. Again, I mention Graham MacMahon, and his organisation, who circulated those petitions for people to look at. The first one had 562 signatures and the second 3070 signatures. Most members would agree they are rather large petitions for this House. The interesting thing about those petitions is when looking through the list of names and addresses of people who signed them, understandably, a large majority were Territorians. In the first petitions of 562 signatures, 230 were people from the Northern Territory. In the second petition of 3070 signatures, 1419 were Territorians. The bulk of signatures came from people around Australia and overseas; from every state and territory in Australia, to places all over the globe. In the first petition there were 15 signatures from people in the UK, someone from Casablanca, a couple from Holland, a South African, and people from New Zealand, America, Ireland, the Cocos Islands and Germany. In the second petition there was a signature from someone from Kuala Lumpur, a couple from Spain, seven from Singapore, and people from Holland, Scotland, Canada, Estonia, France, South Africa, Ireland, Saint-Malo, the United Kingdom, America, Germany, Denmark and Malaysia. This shows there is quite a deal of interest from people who wish to go fossicking, prospecting and metal detecting.
That is a good story because it shows people are interested in seeing the great outdoors of the Northern Territory, people who want to look around and, with any luck, they will find something. They will come across something; it may be an old horseshoe or a nail, some funny shaped rocks, or they might come across the next great gold mine; that is the reality of it.
Obviously, these people do not just turn up with a metal detector. Mr Robinson travels with his fishing rod and golf clubs. He is going to golf parks, he is fishing, and he has to stay somewhere; he is utilising motels and all the services townships and communities can offer. These people are contributors to the Northern Territory, so I am interested to hear what the Minister for Tourism has to say about this bill and the way government intends to treat fossickers.
Unfortunately, I was not aware of the departmental briefing, so I am not aware of the last minute amendments the minister has put up. I am very keen, when this goes to committee stage, to ask a few questions in relation to that.
Getting back to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, we spoke to an organisation which ranked countries around the world for their exploration potential. Not surprisingly, on their rankings Australia came top of the list for companies wanting to explore for resources in Australia. However, when broken down into a range of different categories, Australia ranked high in some categories and low in others. We were nearly worst in the world in relation to land access and what we termed ‘green take’, that is, all the environmental considerations. Many will say that is not a bad thing; we want to set the bar very high in relation to exploration, the environment and land access. Where Australia topped the list was areas such as government support; things like Geoscience Australia, which does a huge amount of mapping work and is publicly available virtually for anyone. Much of the guess work is taken away by the service Geoscience Australia offers.
The issue of land access in Northern Territory has been a bugbear for years. People in a range of areas, not only prospectors, find Aboriginal land is off-limits to the vast majority, national parks are off-limits and pastoral leases, to a large extent, have also been off-limits. There are few places people have been able to access land to undertake scratching, prospecting, fossicking and metal detecting.
I heard what the member for Katherine said about the regulations; I hope he is not right. I hope we do not wait two years for the regulations. I imagine much of what prospectors are interested in will be contained in the regulations.
I urge the minister to ensure those regulations are drafted and put in place. The notion of ‘use it or lose it’ is of concern. I know this has occupied the mind of governments, not only in the Northern Territory but across Australia, even the federal parliament. How do you almost force mining companies to use the leases they have? The knee-jerk way Labor governments have proposed is the concept of ‘you use it or you lose it’.
There is a contradictory argument to that in relation to sovereign risk. If you tell international mining and exploration companies if they spend millions and millions of dollars on exploration, bearing in mind this is high risk - there is very little return in exploration for explorations sake; it is only if you are lucky and the times suit, bearing in mind commodity prices, access to transport and a whole range of issues – it is only then a mine becomes viable. Quite often markets dictate a mine is not viable, but a mining company may take a commercial decision to retain a lease in the hope commodity prices change. If a government says you need to develop a mine in such and such a time frame, the chances are those global exploration companies will look at Australia, and the Northern Territory, and say: ‘They have just added another element of risk called sovereign risk, where the government will seize our lease and take our work’. That is the conundrum governments find themselves in. I am interested to question the minister on assurances he will give to mineral companies to ensure they do not leave the Northern Territory.
I do not want to say too much on this. I am glad the government has acted in such hasty fashion to put this before us; it has only taken eight years which is almost record time for this government - well done. Hopefully, their haste will also be reflected in the drafting of the regulations and we will not be waiting for two years, as suggested by the member for Katherine.
I acknowledge the contribution prospectors have made to mining. I have only mentioned two prospectors; however, there are hundreds of these guys around the country who were the origins of some of our great mines in Australia. For that reason, I support them and their efforts to prospect more of the Territory and, hopefully, tell us more about the resources we have in the Northern Territory.
I also acknowledge the contribution these guys make to the Northern Territory tourism industry. They are not appearing and disappearing; they are using all our services offered in the Northern Territory, from caravan parks to restaurants, to golf courses to fishing holes. They make a great contribution to the community, and I would like to see this government take that into account.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am surprised the member for Fong Lim did not take the opportunity to talk on the super profits tax; at this stage in history how could he forget …
Mr Tollner: How could I forget!
Mr WOOD: I digress. Before I speak more on this bill, we should look at mining from a more philosophical approach in relation to the Territory.
Mining has been very much part of the Territory since the Chinese and Europeans first came to these shores. The area I came to in the 1970s was Daly River, and the first thing I learned about was the famous copper mine where Noltenius and crew dug a hole in the rock. When you see what they did by hand, you have to wonder at the effort they made to grind out a living in a harsh environment, and a long way from anywhere. Look at Fletcher’s Gully and some of the small gold mines in that area; you see shafts going straight into the ground. Standing there in October/November you think: these must have been tough people. Southport was a major port in Darwin Harbour for a long time because it picked up the gold from Pine Creek - Mira Road was the donkey trail from Pine Creek to Southport.
There is a huge amount of history in relation to mining we should not forget. People like Joe Fisher, who passed away a couple of years ago; his contribution to opening up the Northern Territory for mining should not be forgotten. People in this House will have knowledge of those who contributed to mining.
Mining in Central Australia was also important, and continues to be important. We must not forget mining is the number one industry in the Northern Territory by a long way. Therefore, the bill which has been put forward today is extremely important because it is the basis on which that industry is to continue in the Northern Territory.
Member for Goyder, I always say that nearly all the buildings you see in Darwin today are built because of extractive mining in the rural area. Nearly all the sand supplied for concrete comes from Howard Springs – a colossal amount – yet, sometimes we forget the importance of that area. I was suggesting to the member for Goyder earlier that when the strategic plan reaches daylight one of the things we must not forget is the importance of the extractive mining industry in the Darwin region. In other words, we have to be careful not to lock up some of the land required to build and develop the Darwin region. It is important we do not forget extractive gravel, sand, rock and blue metal are all very much the foundation of development, especially in the Darwin region.
The member for Katherine has done a great job going through this bill. It is not easy for lay people to find our way through this maze of technical terms; getting our head around what was before and what is now. I thank the government for the briefings we have had. After the first briefing, we needed another. We also had a briefing with Michael Fong in my office. I appreciate the effort he made to put forward some good points. He has made it a more open and transparent process, especially in relation to reserve land, and that is very good.
My old friend, Geoff Casey - people would know him from a long time ago; he has been around for donkey’s ages - has a strong opinion on several issues, and I will raise those and bring forward the department’s response. I know the minister can do it as well. The department’s response has been good; it has given me a better understanding of the system.
I see there have been some amendments. Even though I had an idea of the amendments, these are different, in parts, to the amendments I had. In a short time, I have been trying to digest what is in here. I am hopeful we will take the committee stage reasonably slowly so we can have a better explanation. I notice - and I am sure the fossicking people will be happy to know - there have been changes. One of the changes applies also to Geoff Casey’s argument about miners’ rights. Under clause 20 in the bill which deals with preliminary exploration or fossicking, you do not need permission to go onto a pastoral property. Clause 20 says, in relation to a person who has an authorised preliminary exploration right:
- A person may conduct preliminary exploration on pastoral land or native title land only after:
You have the right to go onto that land as long as you notify them.
You must take into account clause 24, which gives some general obligations of what you must do in relation to preliminary exploration. Clause 24(1) says:
- A person conducting preliminary exploration of land must comply with the reasonable conditions or requests of the landowner.
We have to balance this with the rights of the pastoral industry and native title owners. I believe that is fair enough. The complaint you will receive from the pastoral industry is: ‘People come onto our property, we do not know them; they leave gates open’. Animals move out, which upsets them as well. We need to not only encourage the fossicking people to get out there; we also need to recognise issues from the pastoral industry. There is a set of general obligations under this act which everyone in the industry needs to read and be aware of.
The other change, due to the lobbying of the fossicking people, is tourist fossicking will be allowed. My understanding - and the minister will tell me if I am wrong – is that will come under a mineral lease. Under the mineral lease you will need to comply with a series of conditions. They are some very important and exciting changes. As the member for Fong Lim said, the fossicking industry is important. It not only allows people to go fossicking when they come to the Territory, they do other things as well. Perhaps with the increase in the number of grey nomads travelling around Australia, there may be more and more fossicking. However, all these things have to be balanced. Fossicking is fine, however the rights of the pastoral industry to ensure their industry is protected is the balancing act. That needs to be kept in mind through this.
Geoff Casey was concerned about the abolition of the miners’ rights, and if a person had a miners’ right - I was interested in what the member for Katherine was saying about miners’ rights and how the police would sign them up. I was wondering if he signed his own, which might be a conflict of interest. I thought he would at least ask a mate to do it; however, that was in the 1980s, and you know how we got car licences in those days too …
Mr Westra van Holthe: They were the good old days.
Mr WOOD: They were the good old days; things have changed today. As the bill says, you can get a preliminary exploration provision, which has similar rights, without the specific need to seek warden’s approval. The new section talks about access to pastoral leases and, as I said, you are required to notify the landowner; you still have access to pastoral leases.
There is also discussion about the abolition of a mineral claim. The department’s response is mineral claims have become part of mineral leases, and it will not be necessary to peg before lodging an application. There are changes which I believe will satisfy people like Geoff, who has a miners’ right. People who still have concerns should ask the minister for a briefing from the experts. They know the ins and outs of mining leases, extractive mining leases, extractive exploration leases, retention leases; they know them better than I do. My understanding, from answers the department has given, is they all make sense and do not appear to restrict people who have mining rights from doing what they did then; they will be able to do the same things now.
There was some concern about the abolition of the Mining Warden’s Court. I am interested, minister, if there will be any major changes from what the Warden’s Court did to what the Lands Planning and Mining Tribunal will do. Are there any great changes between the two and, if so, could you highlight those changes?
Geoff is also concerned about the minister making decisions regarding applications. The department has mentioned clause 165, which talks about the minister giving written notice of decisions and requirements. There are three parts to that. It is obvious the minister must tell people the reason for the decisions, so it is in the bill. There will be people who are concerned about change, minister. If people are still concerned about their rights being diminished I ask if the department could be available to take questions from those people; that would be a positive approach.
When I first came to the Territory I worked at Daly River for some time; I was looking for a block of land. Blocks of land were hard to come by in a pastoral area, however, little squares popped up. I have forgotten how many acres they were. They were always called garden leases. I do not know whether they had a formal title, but I have heard those garden leases will be resumed, changed, or whatever. I am interested to know what they are officially called. My understanding is they were garden leases because they were to allow miners to grow a few vegies. From an historical point of view they have been around for many years; I am interested to know the future intention of those little blocks of land.
The other important issue for me is reserves. This matter was brought up by Michael Fonda; he has a practice in Adelaide River and is passionate about some changes. He owns land in Silkwood. I have told him I do not support subdivision of that country. I believe much of Silkwood country should have been preserved; then I might not have to worry about this. We would have put it under special reserved land, which might have been the fixer. However, it has been subdivided and he has land he would like protected from mining.
I believe the changes the government have brought forward are good. The changes allow notice to be given in the newspaper relating to the locality of the reserved land, the description of the land, and the reasons. For instance, if the minister wanted to revoke the land, a whole series of things opens the process for the public to have a say, which is really important.
The concern I have - I received a preliminary draft of amendments for this area because we were negotiating it with Michael Fonda - is the amendments today in relation to general reserved land appear to have been shortened, especially after clause 113. They seem to be in the regulations rather than defining them in the act. I will be interested to find out why that has changed.
Even with the pastoral industry it is important that there is a balance between the rights of miners and the rights of landowners. I know the government owns all the minerals, but that is not much chop if you are living on that land. You can sound very technical and legal, however the reality is people have their homes on parcels of land and sometimes they have a close affinity with that land. When someone says: ‘I am going to dig it up’, they might find it is not quite what they would like. At least this allows land to be reserved from mining, and it allows a process for that to be done another way. The balance is, if someone wants a parcel of land reserved for mining, the mining industry should have the right to say: ‘We do not think that should happen. We think there are some important minerals in that land, and we do not think they should be locked away’. You have to have the balance and this, from what I have seen, appears to give the balance; although I need to absorb the slight changes to clause 113, which I do not quite have my head around.
The other area not mentioned much is the mineral authority. That took some trying to understand. I had only moved through the ELs, the ELRs, the MLs and the EMLs …
Ms Purick: MCs.
Mr WOOD: Yes, whatever. I came across the mineral authority and thought: what the heck is that? I think I understand it, minister; it gives someone permission to go onto reserved land and do not much more than fossicking. If they feel there is an opportunity for mining, they can apply to the minister for an exploration licence over part or all of that reserve. It was one of those things; some of these words like ‘mineral authority’ do not always describe exactly what they mean. I understand the gist of it now and it makes sense; even though land is reserved it does not stop people looking. I believe that is good.
We had contact with the Minerals Council. They have been discussing this for about four years; it is time. You can go around in circles forever; however it is legislation which needs to be brought before parliament. The in word is we need ‘contemporary legislation’. It is saying we need to bring legislation up to date with any changes in a new century in relation to mining. It is important we bring in good legislation which is balanced and fair to all people involved and, at the same time, is legislation which will drive the most important industry in the Northern Territory.
Although we might jump up and down about mining at times, if we did not have mining in the Northern Territory we would certainly be more reliant on the GST and government. I have said this about the department of Primary Industries, the department of Resources, we have to push for a much broader economy. We have to become less reliant on handouts from the Commonwealth and stand on our own two feet. If we ever want a claim to statehood I believe we have to be far less reliant on the Commonwealth; be basically independent of them in the sense we can raise our own revenue. One of the main areas of raising revenue has to be the mining industry.
This bill before us today, which will turn into an act when the regulations are sorted out - wherever you go through this bill you will see the word ‘regulation’. I hope there can be more discussion about those regulations. Generally speaking, in parliament they say ‘subject to regulations’ and it goes off to a committee and that is the last you see of it. Very rarely do you see regulations debated in parliament, and it may be there is an opportunity for those regulations to come back because they will be the backbone of this bill; this bill will be the backbone of the industry.
Agreeing with this bill and not having any idea of the regulations is like giving 50% approval and the rest I do on faith. This might be an opportunity, because it is such an important bill, to allow the regulations to come back to parliament for a broader debate rather than in a committee. We can discuss it with the industry, and it can come back for debate by more people than just the committee. If that is possible, I believe it is the way we should go.
Madam Speaker, I will be speaking more when we get to the committee stage because there are quite a few amendments. Overall, I am happy there have been changes. The bill is now before us and I support the bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, yes, it has been a long time coming; it has been eight years - a little slow. With the exception of the minister and advisors, the member for Nelson and I are probably the few who really know the history of the legislation, and it is time for an overhaul. It has been in for a long time, and whilst there was nothing dramatically wrong with the legislation, there had been many changes; it was time to review the whole bill.
We support the Minerals Title Bill and the policies behind the change. However, from my discussions with industry people, both big and small, particularly the smaller explorers who this mostly impacts, the extractive people, the tenement management people, and some legal people who are a very important part of the industry, there are still a number of issues I would like to query - also from my notes from my previous work within the minerals industry. They mostly pertain to native title and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, which is the Commonwealth legislation, as is the native title. I will go through them, and some of them may have to go into committee stages.
I start by referencing areas of concern, some of which may require clarification from the minister, and that is fine.
Clause 203(3)(a) of the bill envisages a mineral claim under the Mining Act must be converted to either a mineral exploration licence or a mineral lease. I see some of these following material issues: the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act - and will call it the Land Rights Act from now on – (1) does not appear to contemplate or allow the creation of a mineral exploration licence on Aboriginal land without the procedures in sections 41 and 42 of the Land Rights Act having been complied with (with traditional owners having the right of veto); and (2), pursuant to section 46 does not contemplate a mineral lease being granted on Aboriginal land unless the miner is an intending miner and holds either a mineral exploration licence, or a mineral exploration licence in retention. They are very important issues and need to be addressed.
The next one is in relation to the Native Title Act 1993 - which I will call the Native Title Act - any requirement to undertake the right to negotiate is likely to result in miners entering into agreements which provide for compensation in terms over and above those that exist as a result of any existing mineral claims granted prior to the Native Title Act. Therefore, if a mineral claim was converted to a mineral exploration licence, or mineral exploration licence in retention, any subsequent application by the miner for a mineral lease, in effect restoring their original position, would likely trigger the right to negotiate on any pastoral lease land, or other land where native title may exist because (a) it is most unlikely the grant of the mineral claim fully extinguished all native title rights and interests; and (b) it is difficult to see how the grant of a future mineral lease under this new mineral titles legislation will not be wholly or partly inconsistent with the continued existence, enjoyment and exercise of the remaining native title rights and interests.
The next point is great care would have to be taken to ensure the conversion from a mineral claim to a mineral lease did not affect native title rights and interests, given the different expressions of the rights flowing from each title, triggering the right to negotiate. That is one of the main areas of concern; in recommending these changes there is not detrimental impact upon companies, particularly when you have one company which has some 125 mineral claims. It is the biggest holder of mineral claims in the Territory, and the minister and advisors know which company this is. We do not want that company, which is a major player in the Tennant Creek region, to have any detrimental impact in the conversion of their MCs to ELs or mineral leases, for example.
I ask the minister, in light of my statement, to considers a new ‘Principle for Transition’ be inserted in clause 193(2) of this new legislation, to the effect there is to be no disadvantage to existing mineral interests or holders in rights or obligations as a result of either the Land Rights Act or the Native Title Act. Second, the minister’s decision under clause 203(3) of this new minerals title legislation should be discretionary rather than mandatory so if issues such as those identified present a real impediment to any conversion, mineral claims may be retained in accordance with clause 203(2) of this new minerals title legislation.
The new transfer in dealings provisions in Division 1, or Part 7 of this Mineral Titles Bill, give rise to the following issues which I have discussed with industry. Point A: it appears legal or equitable interest may be created under clause 122(1), without registration, however, any subsequent transfer of such interest requires registration under clause 123(1), which does not appear to be a consistent policy treatment.
Point B: in my view, and the view put to me - and we have discussed it with industry - the definition of ‘general dealing’ in clause 125(1) would include all instruments of dealings under clause 122(1), but would extend also to other interests or relationships, such as many royalty agreements, farming agreements, and joint venture agreements. In order for such other interests to be registered my view, and the view of industry people I have been dealing with, is clause 125 would benefit from the inclusion of equivalent provisions to clauses 122(2) and 122(3) of the new mineral titles legislation.
The next point is in regard to clause 20(a), 21(2)(b), 66 and 72 of the new Mineral Titles legislation which provides landowners have certain rights of notification and objection. Clause 14(d) of this legislation defines landowner to include the holders of native title where there is an approved determination of native title. The following complicating factors may arise, and I bring them to the minister’s attention. Under the native title legislation, there may be native title holders who are not recognised in the native title determination. Native title determinations are likely to specify estate groups, such identified current individual native title holders who will be landowners, and it may be difficult without research into the genealogies of a particular estate group.
Third, native title determinations relating to several estate groups in relation to an area may not specify which estate group is the native title holder for particular parts of the area.
Clauses 21(2)(b) and 66 appear to require further provisions or supporting regulations to address the above issues. As previous speakers have indicated, the regulations to this legislation are going to be very critical in supporting the legislation to enable it to work efficiently and effectively.
I turn my attention to clause 4(2) of the Mineral Titles Bill, which does not reflect the purpose of the Mining Management Act. The long title of the Mining Management Act is: ‘… to provide for the authorisation of mining activities, the management of mining sites, the protection of the environment on mining sites, and for related purposes’. The current wording in clause 4(2) of this Mineral Titles Bill describes the Mining Management Act as legislation ‘… to ensure the protection of the environment’. That is it. It appears more appropriate the word ‘and’ be substituted for the word ‘to’.
The example provided at clause 11(2)(d) of the Mineral Titles Bill, I believe, is misleading. A compulsory acquisition of land underlying the mineral title would not cause a cessation of the mineral title. I ask the minister to review that and give some explanation as to why he believes it to be the case; we do not believe it would.
The right of occupation granted for a mineral exploration licence pursuant to clause 26(1)(a) of the Mineral Titles Bill appears to make it more likely a transfer of a mineral exploration licence to a foreign person will trigger notification requirements under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, which is a Commonwealth act. There does not appear to be any good policy reason for that legislation involvement at this early stage of the exploration and mining process, especially given the Territory minister’s discretion to refuse a transfer.
The exclusive right to apply for a mineral lease in clause 26(1)(c) of this legislation is not consistent with the right under section 25(b)(ii) of the Mining Act - the holder of a mineral lease to obtain an ancillary mineral lease over an exploration licence held by another miner where it is necessary to support a mining operation. It is my view clause 26 of the Mineral Titles Bill should be amended to preserve this feature of the Mining Act.
I seek confirmation from the minister regarding the operation of clause 29 of the Mineral Titles Bill. I believe the reduction of a title area of a mineral exploration licence every two years will only occur during the initial grant of a licence for six years and not during any further renewals, and I seek clarification on that point.
I also query whether there is any underlying purpose for the language used in clause 34 of the Mineral Titles Bill, which initially appears to make the issue of a mineral exploration licence in retention an administrative designation rather than the application for, and grant of, a new title. In particular, I ask whether the phrase, ‘… may decide to designate’, seeks to reduce the potential for the right to negotiate process under the Native Title Act to apply.
Clause 38(1)(b) of the Mineral Titles Bill forces the holder of a mineral exploration licence in retention to apply for the grant of a mineral lease if the mining and processing of mineral becomes commercially viable. There is no clarity on what constitutes a commercially viable operation, and I can see valid scenarios where it is not reasonable for a miner to seek to convert an exploration licence in retention to a mineral lease at a particular point in time.
I recommend a revised approach whereby the minister has the power to serve notice on the miner requiring conversion, unless the miner can satisfy the minister that conversion is not appropriate; otherwise there is a risk of creating situations where, though for good reasons, the act is wilfully not complied with by the miner and the Territory, in effect, acquiesces to such non-compliance. It needs some clarification, minister.
The Mineral Titles Bill does not appear to contain the Mining Act provision for compensation to an exploration retention licence holder if their application for a mineral lease is refused. In circumstances where the Mineral Titles Bill ratchets up the requirement to obtain and hold an ELR and, in certain cases to make an application for a mineral lease compulsory, it appears inequitable not to have a similar provision in this Mineral Titles Bill.
In regard to the requirements of clause 33(2) of the Mineral Titles Bill, for a mineral exploration licence in retention, and note there is no provision for the grant of an ancillary mineral exploration licence in retention similar to sections 41(a) of the Mining Act, it is difficult to secure necessary areas for ancillary mining infrastructure; for example, waste dumps, processing plants and tailings dams.
I recommend the Mineral Titles Bill be amended to allow for either an ELR of sufficient area to cover both the ore body, or an anomalous zone and any related areas required for mining, or an ELR for ancillary purposes where there has been granted an ELR under clause 33(2)(a) of this minerals title legislation.
Clause 65(3) of the Mineral Titles Bill prevents the grant of any mineral title, excluding an extractive mineral permit and extractive mineral lease, over an existing mineral title, except as provided by regulation. I seek confirmation that extractive mineral permits and extractive mineral leases are able to be granted over mineral exploration licences; it is not quite clear to me.
Clause 76(4)(a) of the bill provides the regulation shall determine the maximum size of an ML and an EML. I query whether regulations will provide for 4000 ha and 100 ha respectively. I would like that clarified.
In clause 78(5)(a) of the bill it appears the term ‘new title’, should read ‘new mineral title’. A small item, however, I believe it is important. The language used in clause 78(5)(a) of the bill is not consistent with the rest of the bill, and I query whether the defined term ‘authorised activities’ is perhaps more appropriate.
The test in clause 78(5)(b) of the bill appears to have the unintended consequence of preventing the grant of an EMEL within an EL, which may significantly diminish the applicability and usefulness of an EMEL. Many acronyms, however I know the minister and his advisors know what they are.
It is important to clarify and bolster the right, under clause 83 of the bill, by stating the titleholder shall have access to, and from, the title area.
Clause 88(a) of the bill is potentially inconsistent with clause 107 of the bill, and the power given to the titleholders under clause 81 of the bill to enter and occupy the land. Clause 88(a), as currently drafted, may cause difficulties with landowners who are determined to hinder or prevent exploration or mining - and there are some out there - notwithstanding the rights of the miner. I suggest the words ‘as little damage as reasonably practicable’ be substituted for the word ‘damage’.
Pursuant to clause 104 of the bill, there appears to be no equivalent provision to section 30(5) of the Mining Act to refund the unexpired portion of the rent for the licence which has been surrendered upon request of the minister. I query whether this is an intentional change or a slip-up in the drafting.
In clause 130(1) of the bill, the phrase ‘… legal or equitable interest in a mineral title, or in an application relating to a mineral title …’ is used. Clause 121(e) of the bill defines legal and equitable interest held by persons in mineral titles or applications relating to mineral titles as ‘mineral rights interests’. Therefore, it appears clause 130 of the bill refers to mineral rights interests. If this is the case, I suggest the term ‘mineral rights interest’ be used in clause 130(1).
If it is intended there be a difference, I would appreciate advice from the minister as to what other interests are envisaged.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you have more to …
Ms PURICK: Yes, I have two or three pages. Do you want to break?
Madam SPEAKER: If you do not mind we will break because there is a committee meeting; after Question Time then.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Discharge of General Business
Discharge of General Business
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly discharge General Business Orders of the Day No 6 relating to a motion to establish a Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee Terms of Reference.
Motion agreed to.
MINERAL TITLES BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to continue. I have a few more items I wish to raise with the minister. The phrase and I quote: ‘purporting to deal with the mineral title application to which the caveat relates in section …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Katherine, member for Arafura! Member for Goyder, you have the call.
Ms PURICK: The phrase: ‘… purporting to deal with the mineral title or application to which the caveat relates …’ in clause 133(1) of this bill is uncertain. It is unclear whether ‘an instrument of dealing’, clause 122(1) of the bill, or a ‘general dealing’, clause 125(1) of the bill, are within the scope of clause 133(1) of the bill. I recommend any general dealing, which I view as including all instruments of dealing, transfers or devolutions, should cause the caveator to be notified, and clause 133 of the bill be amended to clearly reflect this position.
I query whether the caveat provisions would be improved by allowing for a caveat which specifically excludes certain dealings from the notification requirement. This would allow a caveat to specify dealings to be granted and registered by the minister without having to comply with clause 131(1) of the bill. I query also whether …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should say: ‘We query whether clause 195’, because she is not reading from her speech; she is reading from a letter provided to her by a legal firm in Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order.
Ms PURICK: I find it …
Mr Vatskalis: Call it plagiarism.
Ms PURICK: … completely bizarre the minister is querying discussions I have had with industry. This is about industry and trying to get the best deal, minister.
Mr Vatskalis: It is word for word, the whole speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have an opportunity in replying.
Ms PURICK: If you do not understand what is being discussed, minister, I suggest you get your advisors back so they can explain it to you. You are obviously going to need it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, please direct your comments through the Chair. Minister, cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: Clause 195 of the bill should be amended to include a saving position for an authorisation made under section 181 of the Mining Act, similar to the saving provision for the authorisation under section 182(2) of the Mining Act.
Clause 203(1)(b) of the bill states a title granted under section 191(19) and (20) of the Mining Act is a ‘non-compliant existing interest’ and continues in force until dealt with. It is noted however, under the original terms many such interests were dependent upon the continuing existence of a miners’ right. With the abolition of the miners’ right, I query whether the bill provisions are sufficient to preserve the interest.
The other issue I query the minister on, and would like assurances for, is regarding authorised officers under the bill. My main concern is - and there are a few - the person or persons who are appointed as authorised officers appear to have all-encompassing wide-sweeping powers greater than a police officer: clauses 174, 175, 176, 177 and 178. Clause 178(2) for example, search and cease powers:
- The authorised officer may, without a warrant, exercise any of the following powers for the detection or prevention of the offence:
- (a) enter and search a place, except residential premises;
(b) stop, enter and search a vehicle, vessel or aircraft;
- (c) stop, detain and search a person in connection with the exercise of a power under paragraph (a) or (b);
…
- (e) require a person to cease doing something;
- (g) inspect, take samples of or seize any thing found in a search under this subsection;
My very big concern is the minister, and this act, are giving extraordinarily wide-sweeping powers to an individual to search, to seize, to interrogate people, to interview people and, yet, that person or persons do not have a right of reply at law. They have exceptionally wide-ranging powers, greater than that of a police officer; that concerns me a great deal. I seek assurances from the minister that there will be protection to individuals who are inspected, detained, or searched. I would like a definition. What does ‘search a person’ mean? What kind of search are we talking about? Are we doing a frisk search, are they having to empty out their pockets, or do they have to undergo some other search in regard to their detention?
They make a record about an exercise of power under this subsection; inspect and retrieve a thing or information, operate electronic equipment found as a result of the search in order to retrieve or record information. It may be here, however, I cannot see where things which are seized, the detention of a person, the searching of a person’s personal being - where is their protection? Where are their rights?
I would like a greater explanation of ‘authorised officer’ because when comparing this bill to the Mining Act, their powers have been vastly expanded and increased, which causes me a great deal of concern.
I would like the minister to confirm and clarify the position regarding the government’s needs to extract materials for road construction - and it generally is extracted materials to build roads or to embark on infrastructure projects. As the minerals are vested in the Crown, the Crown does not need to have an extractive licence. However, the big issue is government does not rehabilitate the borrow pits they have dug up over the last few years. That concerns me greatly. I would like some assurance from the minister that government will rehabilitate those borrow pits as they continue to build our roads and drains, in exactly the same way they expect industry to rehabilitate their extractive mineral areas.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say at this time. I am generally supportive of the bill, however there are many questions. The minister seems to be a little confused. I look forward to his answers regarding what I, and industry, have raised. Yes, it has been a long time coming. The test is not so much in this legislation; it will be in the regulation. The history of this government is it has taken eight years for this bill to get to the House. I hope it is not another eight years before the regulations are in force. Yes, the regulations are important. I urge the minister to have the regulations in draft form as quickly as possible to consult with industry, the community, and local government; it is important for everyone to have input.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and the introduction of the Mineral Titles Bill. Members’ contributions to the debate were interesting, particularly the member for Nelson who talked about the protocols of entering pastoral lands. It brought back a memory I would like to share with the House, which was the wonderful sign on the horse paddock gate at Woollogorang Station on the border of Northern Territory and Queensland. It said: ‘God may forgive, but the head stockman won’t, so shut the (expletive) gate’. I believe that goes a long way in explaining to Territorians the serious protocols needed when accessing pastoral land throughout the Territory. I suggest you definitely need to make contact with station ownership or management before traversing station land.
The Northern Territory economy is dominated by the mining sector, which accounts for nearly 25% of the economy. It is important our legislation is up-to-date and recognises the significant changes to information technology, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and native title, market globalisation and technologies.
The Mineral Titles Bill will replace the existing Mining Act, which has been in place for nearly 30 years. The Mineral Titles Bill will more accurately reflect the purpose of the legislation to deal with mineral title matters. The act will also provide a clear distinction from other acts, such as the Mining Management Act, which monitors mine and environmental regimes.
The new act includes objectives which better reflect the specific purpose of the legislation; a greater degree of environmental protection, particularly for parks such as the West MacDonnell Ranges, with the introduction of special reserves. This will provide increased flexibility and security when reserving areas from a particular activity.
The abolition of miners’ rights - this is an historical tenure which now has limited significance in providing access to land in the Territory.
The concept of preliminary exploration to allow the potential of land to be assessed for future exploration of minerals or extractives and exploration licences will continue to remain as the primary form of tenure for exploration; however, they will be able to be renewed. This will provide an incentive for explorers who need more time to complete their exploration programs.
Offshore exploration licences will be introduced to allow applications to be made over Territory waters which extend to the three nautical mile limit. There will be a new, short-term extractive mineral title to allow for the exploration of extractives. Mineral leases will continue to be the main form of tenure for mining operations, and extractive mineral permits and leases will remain as the primary form of tenure for the extractive industry.
The current act has a range of historic mining tenements which date back to the early 1900s, with many now held under a wrong title type. A practical example is the historic Grove Hill Hotel, north of Pine Creek, which is located on a mining tenement. There are two adjoining blocks; one vacant, the other with an established house, also held as mining tenements. It is proposed to rationalise these tenements and convert them to a title which better reflects their current use.
As mentioned earlier, mining has been an important part of the Territory economy and will continue to be. The first commercial gold field was developed in the Pine Creek district in early 1870 and continues to this day. Gold was first discovered in the golden heart of the Territory, Tennant Creek, around the 1930s.
The mining of manganese commenced on Groote Eylandt in the 1960s and, by the early 1990s, was the world’s third-largest producer of manganese. An open cut bauxite mine was developed on the Gove peninsula, and mining commenced in 1971. The mine produces approximately six million tonnes of bauxite per annum.
The mining of uranium commenced at Rum Jungle in 1954. When the mine closed in 1971, over 3500 tonnes of uranium oxide had been recovered from the mine. Open cut uranium mining commenced at the Ranger Mine in 1981, and continues to this day.
Iron ore was mined at Frances Creek from 1966 and stopped in 1974, following Cyclone Tracy and the closure of the old railway line. With the completion of the Alice to Darwin railway line, the Frances Creek mine was reopened. Territory Resources made the first shipment of iron ore to China in 2007, the first in over 30 years, using the railway and the Port of Darwin. In 2009-10, approximately two million tonnes of iron ore was exported to China.
The first commercial oil and gas was found at Mereenie in the early 1960s, and later at Palm Valley. In the 1980s, the gas was piped to Darwin to power the Channel Island Power Station. From 1969, exploration activity concentrated on the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf basin, and later in the Timor Sea.
In my electorate of Barkly, there is growing confidence in the mining sector, which is driving the town’s economy forward.
The member for Nelson’s words about the old mining tenements and mining fields were inspiring. I would like to make comment on some of the great historical photos from the Tennant Creek area, and the wonderful photos of miners’ camps draped in calico, and always in the background of the photo is a woman - a miner’s wife. The ones I enjoy most are of the impeccable white linen hanging on a clothesline somewhere in the Honeymoon Ranges or near the old Peko Mine, which reflects true pioneering spirit and recognises not only the miners in the industry, also the wives and families who support them.
The history of mining in Tennant Creek is colourful and exciting. I would like to talk about the Nobles Nob Mine. I have a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald; an article I picked up on the net which talks about the Tennant Creek area extensively.
- The Nobles Nob Mine, which started as a shaft mine, was founded by Jack Noble who, with his one good eye, formed a team with his friend and financier William Weaber, who was totally blind. It became an open-cut operation in 1967 after the main shaft collapsed. Nobles Nob produced assays which regularly exceeded 100 ounces (3.2 kg) of gold per metric ton. One particularly rich area within the ore body produced over 3000 ounces per ton. During its existence, Nobles Nob produced over a million ounces (32 tons) of gold.
There is a great legend from the Tennant Creek area which relates to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth visited Tennant Creek and was very interested to meet Jack Noble. Her son, Prince Charles, and Lady Diana visited Tennant Creek and were interested in Jack Noble as well. It came out many moons later when the Mayor of Tennant Creek met the Queen and discovered the link - she was a major shareholder in the Australian development company that took over the Nobles Nob tenements and turned the mine into one of the richest gold-producing mines Australia has seen.
We talked about having a fossicking field at Tennant Creek and tourism. We have a fossicking field west of Tennant Creek, and people are encouraged to fossick. As outlined by the member for Fong Lim, a great pastime with the potential to produce wealth.
Another great legend from Tennant Creek is Christ the King Church, first built in Pine Creek and moved to Tennant Creek in 1936, and located on a mining tenement. In relation to the story of Grove Hill, this legislation relates to converting these tenements to new uses. I am sure Christ the King sorted out its tenure a long time ago. The legend lives on from the early days when cracker dust from the mine was used as a dust suppression agent at the Christ the King Church in Smith Street. It was legend that after the rain you could find gold nuggets on your way home from Mass on Sunday morning.
I will move to the future of Tennant Creek and the Barkly in relation to this bill and talk about the excitement in and around the region, and the exploration programs taking place. Six exploration companies are currently operating in the east area of Tennant Creek and on the old tenements around Tennant Creek and, very exciting for the locals, exploring the legendary Rover Field approximately 80 km west of Tennant Creek. From information the exploration companies are providing to the community, very good assay results are coming back. They are doing much exploration and are very positive about it, which relates to not only a positive for Tennant Creek and the Barkly, also for the Northern Territory.
In relation to modern mining in the area, Bootu Creek manganese mine is located about 110 km north of Tennant Creek. This mine was commissioned in 2006, and it was the first mining company to use the Alice Springs to Darwin rail line to export the product through the Port of Darwin. This mine has the capacity to produce millions of tonnes of manganese annually.
It is interesting to note the work going on in the exploration for rock phosphate in the eastern Barkly. It stands as a substantial product for the Northern Territory which will benefit a global market for agriculture, and will also be a product which will be transported by road and rail to the Port of Darwin and exported all around the world.
In relation to the port and this bill, East Arm port is a vital link in the Territory’s international trade route connecting our road and rail network with Asia. More than $3bn of cargo is moved through East Arm Wharf annually, supporting 500 industries and thousands of jobs. It is used by a range of industries, including oil and gas, livestock exporters and, importantly, mining.
In June, I launched the East Arm Wharf Facilities Master Plan 2030, Land Use Strategy. The strategy developed by the Darwin Port Corporation provides a blueprint for future developments for land and sea based activities at the wharf. The master plan takes in government’s $150m program to upgrade the wharf’s infrastructure to increase trade opportunities and economic developments over the next 20 years.
The infrastructure program at the wharf is under way now. We will need a larger hardstand area to allow for the growth of our port. It is exciting when we look at the reclamation projects of Pond F – a $15m project, including access roads to the site in preparation for bulk earthworks. Since work started in April, fill has been sourced from the Tiger Brennan Drive project and additional fill will be required. I am sure the opportunity to tender for these contracts will be welcomed by our carting and trucking industries. Work has started on the $9.5m eastern reclamation area project, including site investigation and preliminary levelling of the area. This investment in bulk commodity loading and equipment will help drive the mining industry in the Territory through delivering efficiencies at our key export hub.
This government is delivering a strong economy. The passage of this bill is important for our future and the mining sector. Mining will remain a key driver in our economy, which is why we are investing at record levels in our roads, infrastructure, and our port.
I do not have to reiterate the enthusiasm from this side of the House, and the Territory’s bright future. The Tennant Creek area and the Barkly are set for another boom. The local community is excited about this. The rest of the Territory is also excited and watching as we prepare ourselves for another mining boom in a very credible industry which provides links to construction, transport, and Territory jobs.
Already our education sector is planning for this. There will be a major opportunity for young Territorians, not only from the Barkly but all over the Territory; new mines will come online, there will be transport logistics associated with that, major construction projects, and the delivery of jobs and livelihood for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill. I note members contributing to the debate have a positive baseline with this. I believe it is going to committee stage, and there will be some very interesting questions asked of the minister. It is good to share in this House, on both sides, the enthusiasm for an industry which will go a long way to ensuring a very bright Northern Territory future.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also contribute briefly to this debate. Whilst I realise I have 30 minutes, I am not inclined to think I have to speak for 30 minutes. However, I wish to add a few observations in relation to the opinion of this side of the House to this bill.
It is good we are talking about a bill which deals primarily with the extractions of minerals from matters geological, because the government has moved in geological time scales in addressing some of the issues this bill attempts to address. This is an overdue bill and, whilst we welcome it, have the welcoming disposition of a person who impatiently has their arms folded across their chest and tapping their feet.
The extractive industry predates the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. Its history in the Territory goes back a long way and, indeed, predates the Federation, of which we are now a part, albeit a limited and junior partner.
I was minded of some of the folly of South Australia in allowing the Northern Territory to be handed over to the federal government as a mere territory which was to be run, essentially, as an extension of some public service department. It is a sad tragedy the South Australian government did not listen to its own parliamentary committees in the late 1800s when it comes to the Territory. I have in my possession the parliamentary report handed to the minister, Hon J Langdon Parsons MP, member of the South Australian parliament which had jurisdictional control over the Northern Territory until 1911. It is a remarkable document by Mr Sowden, who was also a member of parliament and the party. I point out in the introduction what a folly it was, because Mr Sowden condescends to making these observations:
- What I saw of the country after the party left they also show. If the reader who shall plod faithfully through them be not too overpowered by the relief which comes with a sense that a disagreeable task has been overcome, he will be convinced that that extreme northern country of ours, which we have called by courtesy the Northern Territory, but too often, with bitterness, our White Elephant, is a rich possession which other colonies well might envy us. And if he not be convinced of this, the fault is mine, and not the country’s.
South Australia’s stupidity, for lack of a better description, in allowing the Northern Territory to be handed back to the Commonwealth has, ultimately, become the Northern Territory’s gain as a self-governing jurisdiction. Mr Sowden is a man of great literary skill. This is a parliamentary report you would not see produced in the modern world. Whilst it is some 180-odd pages long, much of it is spent dealing with all manner of issues, some of which had something to do with the purpose of the trip.
I note, with amusement, the title he applied to sharks as he was traversing the seas to come to what was then the town of Palmerston; he refered to them as sea lawyers. It took me some time to figure out what he was talking about, but it becomes obvious as I read on. Unimpressed as he was, his reference to our horses belies the place he came to:
- Arab steeds are not plentiful there; and our collection – though one of the best to be had for love or money, or anything else in the Territory at short notice - would rather have impelled a retired bone-mill owner to reminiscences than have inspired a horse-jockey with pleasure.
Such was his view of the world. He went on to talk about our mining industry and it is interesting; the things which affected the mining industry then continue to affect the mining industry now. The document I am referring to is the Northern Territory Library reproduction Dewey Decimal No 919429. On page 48 of that document he said one of the problems with mining in the Northern Territory was:
- Capital and skilled labour must be the watch-word for the Northern Territory.
It is true to this day; it continues to be a major problem.
I listened to the Minister for Transport on this issue, who made more than a passing reference to the mining industry in the Barkly. The party which visited the Northern Territory in 1882 went to some length to describe the gold mining industry, which was still burgeoning at the time, in the Pine Creek area. I am somewhat surprised, and ask the Minister for Transport about the reference he made to a seam of gold in the Tennant Creek area producing a total sum of 3000 ounces for a ton of gold. The general yardstick used is that there are 32 000 ounces in a ton, which is an imperial ton.
Mr McCarthy: Which ton?
Mr Knight: It was at Nobles Nob.
Mr McCarthy: I was talking about Nobles Nob.
Mr ELFERINK: Did that produce 3000 ounces per ton of gold?
Mr McCarthy: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Really? That is amazing. To give you an example, the biggest nugget ever found in Australia …
Mr McCarthy: Well, Hansard will record it, but I will read it again for you: one thousand ounces per metric tonne.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin and Minister for Correctional Services, this is not a debate across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call. Continue with your speech, thank you, and minister, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps in the defence of the minister, I invited the interjection, however we will, I am sure, acquiesce to your ruling. I am sorry, minister, maybe I misunderstood, but I heard you to say 3000 ounces per ton. If that is what you said, it is an extraordinary thing.
The Welcome Stranger nugget, the largest nugget ever found in Australia, was 2316 ounces. If you allow 3000 ounces per ton, you are talking about an amount of gold which was about 10% of the ton of ore it was extracted from. If you turn to the report of the parliamentary party that visited the Northern Territory it puts it into perspective. I quote from page 58 of the document I referred to previously:
- The yields per ton were - 25 tons, 1 oz; 40 tons, 4 oz; 90 tons, a little more than oz. The next claim is the Clifton, in which gold has been traced along the line for between 80 and 90 feet, but only one small crushing, yielding a little over 3 oz to the ton …
You could well understand my astonishment to hear a minister of the Crown claim a mine in the Northern Territory had produced as much as 3000 ounces per tonne. To put that into the modern perspective, depending on the gold price and talking about metric tonnes, the production of about three-and-a-half to four ounces per tonne is about what makes a gold mine productive. The minister’s 3000 ounces per ton was a truly surprising statement, and I would like to see that verified by whatever means he can. Furthermore, the most recent large nugget found in Australia was about 1979, called The Hand of Faith which returned a weight of about 845 ounces and was an international news story at the time.
I invite the minister to confirm the assertion he made because we require our ministers to be excruciatingly accurate in what they tell Territorians. I look forward to confirmation of particular figures because if that is the sort of gold being extracted in the Tennant Creek area, then it has a very lucrative future.
Madam Speaker, I know there are several questions shadow ministers have in relation to this matter and I look forward to them being able to examine the minister more closely through the committee stages. Other than that, the government can know and have comfort that whilst there are minor areas of difference, there is general support for the passage of this legislative instrument.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. Mining makes an important contribution to our economy. It supports local businesses, provides real jobs for Territorians, and mining continues to be the most significant industry in the Territory.
Its contribution to the economy accounts for 26.5% of the Territory’s growth state product. This value is more that three times the national contribution of mining, which is about 7% of the economy. The mining and energy sectors continue to be the key drivers of economic activity, and we are poised to take advantage of rises in global commodity prices and demands for energy. The resource sector also provides considerable opportunities for manufacturing in the Territory, including the Darwin LNG plant, BOC, a helium plant, and the aluminium refinery at Gove.
International exports continue to be an important contribution to the Territory’s economy. Exports account for around 39% of our economy, compared to nationally an average of only 20%. Put simply, the mining and energy sectors remain the cornerstone of our economy and we are focused on our international marketplace. Although mining makes a significant contribution to our economy, its overall contribution to direct employment is around 4% of total workers. In saying this, we should not underestimate the contribution the mining and energy sectors make to our economy. Our recent Northern Territory input and output study update showed for every $1000 of mining production the sector draws business worth around $250 for other Territory businesses. That equates to $1.2bn of business each year.
There are many examples of how it benefits our economy. In the Darwin/Winnellie area we have light industrial, right through to Tennant Creek and around the Adelaide River and Pine Creek areas, where mining keeps the local economy going.
The Department of Business and Employment hosted its 5th Annual Mining Services Expo at the Alice Springs Convention Centre in conjunction with the Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar. AGES is an iconic event, widely known within the exploration arena, and a business expo was also part of the event. The expo provided an excellent opportunity for Northern Territory businesses to showcase their capabilities. Two hundred and seventy-five geologists, researchers and consultants attended. There were 35 members from a Chinese delegation. It was great to have them there.
The expo consisted of 42 exhibitors, with 26 businesses represented from across the Territory. There were two from Tennant Creek, seven exploration companies from the Northern Territory, the Chamber of Commerce was well represented and, as part of the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers Council was there. The NTICN is very important to industry in the Territory. Also AAPA, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, is integral in getting access to land and sacred sites clearances; also the Minerals Council of Australia, and two other NT government agencies.
The two events form a perfect partnership in that AGES provides a captive audience to the expo. Success was measured by exhibitors advising substantial new business had been written as a direct result of these events; contacts were made; quotes for business goods and services provided, and referrals to fellow exhibitors were abundant. Most exhibitors at the event have signed up for booths next year, which is great news.
The types of business involved in supply and support of the mining industry span our whole economy: businesses that supply service, support mining firms during exploration, the development stage, the construction, operation and production stage, right through to the final rehabilitation work on the mines were all represented. There is a range of businesses getting something from mining industry.
The mining industry form parts of our trade strategy as well. We have the four-year trade strategy; the growing international trade priority action plan as part of the strategy. The action plan will ensure Territory businesses are well placed to benefit from the growing relationship with our near international neighbours, certainly in Indonesia with its mining activity. The core countries we are looking at are Japan, China and Indonesia - China with many resources, Japan with the energy sector, and Indonesia with supply and service. We are also looking at other emerging markets – Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Philippines and, of course, Timor-Leste is a growing nation we have a very strong relationship with. We look at those expanding areas.
We are very focused on building and expanding the base of our economy. I travelled to Japan in February to meet with INPEX, also GJC, which is doing their onshore feed at the moment and may take up the role of construction; they are certainly well experienced in that area. It was good to have George Roussos, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and Kevin Peters from the NTICN along to look at those opportunities. Also, the recent visit of the Chief Minister with INPEX, supporting, guiding, ensuring we steer the project to kick off, and we look forward to their final investment decision late next year.
Earlier this year I attended the OZMINE Expo in Jakarta. We had one of the biggest delegations from the Northern Territory - 27 delegates. We hosted a number of networking functions in the evening which proved to be probably the most valuable part of the journey. Businesses we travelled with made many contacts; talked a great deal of business; did many deals over a few drinks and had quiet chats with Indonesian mining companies, government officials, and we saw great opportunities.
I was fortunate to open the conference which was attended by representatives from around Australia. Queensland and Western Australia are trying to enter those markets; they failed to send any members of parliament, so we were very keen to get the business and show the Indonesian mining representatives the Northern Territory government is serious about going down this path.
I had the opportunity to meet the Trade Minister, Dr Mari Pangestu, a valuable connection, and also the Transport Minister, Freddy Numberi. Freddy comes from West Papua where there is much mining activity and, obviously, opportunity.
It was a very successful trip. The minister for Resources is trying to get mining activity happening in the Territory; I am trying to support that by getting more business, local and international, for the service and supply. It is very important.
Part of that trip to Jakarta was about inviting Indonesian mining companies to come to the third Indonesian Mining Procurement Forum held in Darwin on 29 April, which provided an opportunity to show buyers of services, equipment and supplies the capability in Darwin. It was a very good forum; 175 people attended, including 25 Indonesian representatives. The comments generally were: ‘We did not realise Darwin had that amount of amenity; we did not realise the capability of business in Darwin’. That keeps changing year by year; more businesses are coming here.
When I met West Australian business people in Jakarta I suggested they think about opening another office in Darwin. This is where it is all going to happen. I see the capability of Darwin as a service and supply centre for the mining industry in Indonesia growing.
We attended an expo in Balikpapan. I am hoping to seal stronger links with the provincial government of East Kalimantan. In comparison, it is the Western Australia of Indonesia - very big mining opportunities in that province. Local companies have many contracts from that work, including Bridge Autos for the supply of mine vehicles. Engine Engineering of Berrimah, and its Indonesian joint venture partner BT PowerTrans, have established an engine overhaul operation in Balikpapan. Linetec is exporting hydraulic ladders to local coal excavators in Indonesia. Also, Blackwoods at Winnellie is exploring opportunities for industrial hardware products throughout Asia. They are proving very successful.
I will move on to speak more specifically about the bill. We, on this side of the House, support mining investment into the Territory. I was surprised the federal CLP candidate for Lingiari recently ran the old yellow peril line ...
Mr Vatskalis: I would be too.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes. We are trying to encourage investment. The Northern Territory is a small jurisdiction in population and economy; we need investment to get mines off the ground, to get projects happening. We are attempting to form that relationship, and you have an alternative party saying: ‘Stay away; we do not want the Chinese to come here’. We have the Leader of the Opposition going to Taiwan, knowing there is not a good relationship between Taiwan and China, sending very bad messages from the CLP to the prime investors in the Northern Territory.
The initiatives I have mentioned are delivering real results. We have seen a record level of exploration expenditure in the Northern Territory. It must be highlighted, members opposite - the CLP - talked about mining, but when we came to office in 2001 there were 800 exploration licences sitting on the minister’s desk unsigned, piled probably to the roof, holding back mining in the Northern Territory. It was quite outrageous a Country Liberal Party would prevent mining exploration, thus mining operations, and a flow-on into our economy, income for small businesses, and revenue derived from taxation. It is quite incredible.
While most other Australian jurisdictions went backwards during the global financial crisis, the Territory saw year-on-year record levels of exploration expenditure which will flow through the Territory’s economy by creating jobs in our region and supporting Territory businesses.
We will only see this level of investment if there is certainty and confidence in our resources sector and the Mineral Titles Bill will greatly assist in providing that certainty.
The Mineral Titles Bill provides a legislative framework for the exploration, extraction and processing of minerals in the Territory. It is complemented by the Mining Management Act, a totally separate act, which regulates mining activities, the management of mine sites, and environmental protection of mine sites. The Mineral Titles Bill before the House today, as the title reflects, is about legislation for the granting of titles.
It is timely to replace the Mining Act, which has been in operation for 30 years; it is certainly necessary. I understand sections of the existing act which have served us well have been retained, so we have not entirely thrown the baby out with the bath water. We recognise the industry has changed since the Mining Act was first introduced.
The bill before the House has been compared with similar legislation across the nation and has been subject to the most comprehensive consultation process. Not only has a discussion paper been released, submissions called, and a summary of the recommendations published, a series of meetings were held across the Territory, and the turnout to some of those meetings reflected the success of the consultation undertaken by the government.
The new act also takes into account changes in technology leading to new procedures and practices changing the way business is conducted. With the new NBN initiative of the Gillard government, you will see another change in technology. The Mineral Titles Bill also has regard to the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, particularly land access to Aboriginal land.
The Territory’s reliance on the international marketplace makes us players in the global economy. There have been changes to the makeup of the exploration industry itself, with a move away from small miners and prospectors to corporate focus and large scale commercial operators. This is a function of the mining industry itself, being a capital intensive industry. The Mineral Titles Bill provides for the smaller- and medium-sized operators as well.
We have also seen a giant leap in broad area exploration using remote sensing technology. Airborne surveys are proving to be instrumental in unlocking prospective ground, and it is an area where industry recognises the efforts of the Henderson Labor government to assist explorers. We provide a great deal of geotechnical data at no cost to potential explorers to promote the Territory as the place to do business. This data will reduce the risk to explorers, or, put another way, provides the greatest opportunity for success in the field. This information is readily available to explorers.
The bill will assist industry, through greater transparency, in the issuing and managing of mineral applications and titles. The act includes a ‘use it or lose it’ provision. It seeks to create and promote an attitude that, while we are open for business, explorers must be active on the ground or risk the ground being turned over to others who will do the work. It will outline clear expectations the titleholder will explore stronger intervention provisions, the introduction of financial and other penalties, and improved reporting requirements.
The bill provides for a higher level of protection and setting areas aside through granting of reservation of occupation. For example, a special reservation from occupation can be created by the minister to set aside an area from exploration and mining. In effect, it applies a moratorium on the exploration of mining in the area covered by the reserve. The reserve from occupation can also be applied to create a moratorium from exploration or mining in a particular area to provide additional protection for a particular activity. A reservation from occupation could be put in place by government to set aside suitable areas to, say, build a bridge if it was the only suitable area available and there were no existing titles issued over the area. The provisions are not specific in their application; they provide for areas to be set aside for the benefit of the Territory.
The RO is a subject I have been dealing with in my electorate, and I support ROs. Some areas which have had exploration licences placed on them I would class as family homes, and this flexibility provides for protection of those landholders, especially in the rural area.
In closing, I highlight our minerals resources belong to all Australians and there is a clear choice in this debate. The Gillard Labor government wants all Australians to share in the commodity boom; Tony Abbott and the Liberals do not. The Gillard Labor government will cut taxes for small to medium business by raising revenues which belong to Australians; Tony Abbott will increase taxation. The revenue derived from the mining industry will give nest eggs to the retirees, and Tony Abbott does not want to do that. The Gillard government wants to create an infrastructure fund. We hear all the time the roads are not good enough for this activity. This is the area the infrastructure fund would go into. Tony Abbott wants to put money in the pocket of big business.
Madam Speaker, these reforms will deliver flexibility for mining exploration companies. They will encourage active exploration, provide certainty of title, and provide a platform for the next stage of development in the sector. This bill will achieve that. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, it was a very interesting debate and I thank all members for their contribution. I am very proud today because in 2004, as minister for Mines, I approved the terms of reference for the review. I started it, and it has gone through two different ministers. The member for Drysdale, Chris Natt, took over, and finally I am presenting this bill to parliament today.
This is the most comprehensive review of the Mining Act - the act which controls mining in the Territory - for the past 30 years. As the member for Katherine mentioned, in 1990 the CLP contemplated doing a review but did not.
To say this review took too long is a little cheeky; however, I will not say it came very quickly. It had to take time. We called for submissions and had extensive consultation with experts within the industry. As a result, we received 44 different submissions which we considered; we talked to legal firms and, after the bill was read for the second time in parliament, more people contacted us. As a result of that input, I have some committee stage amendments to bring in today.
I make no apology for extensive consultation with the stakeholders; the mining industry is very important to the Territory because it is 26% of our GDP and employs about 4000 people. It is only fair to consult that industry.
You also have to remember this process took place when the Territory experienced an exploration boom; the Territory became the only jurisdiction in Australia to have an increase in expenditure in exploration while other states suffered big declines in exploration, with 49% decline in South Australia.
At the same time we have seen an influx of investment from China and Japan through our China and Japan investment strategies. It is very disappointing to hear Barnaby Joyce, and the Country Liberal candidate in Lingiari, and most recently the federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, express concern about the level of Chinese investment in Australia. I have not seen any comments about the level of American or European investment in Australia. In some cases, these investments are much higher than the Chinese, and some companies which invest in Australia have a budget two or three times the budget of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I particularly thank the member for Katherine who did a really good job; he went through the bill highlighting issues which concerned him and he wanted details. I am very pleased to explain these issues to him. For example, he expressed concern clauses 193(2)(a) and (f), referring to transitional arrangements, would be a very subjective arrangement by the minister. I have to inform you, member for Katherine, the framework for transitional appeal provisions is dealt with under clauses 204(d), 203(4)(d), 202(3)(c) and (v) of the bill. There is already a mechanism for appeal in the bill if someone is not satisfied with transitional arrangements.
Also, regulations will be developed to highlight the appeal details. On principle, all land matters can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I know they have expressed concern over when the regulations will be developed. I have asked the department, as soon as this bill passes, to immediately start drafting the regulations because I want them in a timely manner in order to put this act into place very quickly.
The member for Katherine asked how many titles I granted under the 1903 act; I am pleased to advise there were only two mineral leases.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. The correct name of the garden lease is ‘market garden areas’. The other matter regarding reserve from occupation is to be dealt with by regulation, not legislation. The current legislative framework is adequate to deal with issues raised. It will be administratively easier to incorporate concerns raised by the member for Nelson in the regulations at the time they are developed, and they will be circulated for comments. There will be a public scrutiny period when developing the regulations before they are proclaimed by the Administrator.
I turn to comments made by the member for Fong Lim with regard to the fossicking provisions. I understand Mr MacMahon is very determined, and very active. I ask him to write to my ministerial office next time not my home. Sometimes mail is mixed up with family correspondence, and it can take days before I find out Mr MacMahon raised some issues. The government supports the program for fossicking in the Northern Territory, and this current legislation will strengthen fossicking in the Territory.
Yes, there are differences between us and Western Australia. Western Australia has a different regime to the Territory. We believe people should ask permission from landholders to enter areas. Queensland, Victoria and South Australia have very similar provisions to us, and we will continue discussions with the fossicking lobby. I have asked the department to examine the provisions in Western Australia to see how they apply in order to adjust our legislation if we wish following consultation, to the Western Australia regime.
When we communicated with the Resources Council we were surprised to discover no member of the opposition had spoken to them about fossicking. We also communicated with the Cattlemen’s Association, who also advised no member of the opposition had spoken to them about their change in policy regarding fossicking. They further advised they will strongly oppose any change in the current regime. Cattlemen want to say who gets onto a pastoral lease and who does not. Once again, the member for Fong Lim and the opposition did not consult with anyone. It seems to be their usual practice.
The member for Fong Lim seems to be confused about fossicking and preliminary exploration. However, the provisions in this bill strengthen the ability for both activities to occur. We do not have alluvial gold as in Western Australia, which makes it easier for fossickers to discover gold or other minerals. As I said before, my department will look very closely at the Western Australia regime to see if there are any changes we can implement.
The member for Fong Lim pointed out if the landholder does not respond in two months to the notice of intention to undertake activity on their land the licence holder has an automatic right of access. He questioned that. The same provisions are in the existing act; this is nothing new. The principle is the landholder has an opportunity to raise concerns which are required to be dealt with prior to the licence holder entering land. The time frame for these issues to be raised is two months.
I will turn to the member for Goyder. The member for Goyder is lazy. While the member for Katherine spent time and effort going through the legislation, examining and assessing it, asking questions, the member for Goyder pretended to read her speech which is really not her speech. It is a letter from Ward Keller, the legal firm addressed to my department. In June, my department approached Ward Keller and asked for their opinion. Ward Keller provided a response on Monday, 16 August 2010. Yes, it is a little late; I acknowledge that, however Ward Keller provided a number of questions.
The member for Goyder plagiarised that letter - and I table the letter. She plagiarised that letter word for word. The only thing she changed is where it says ‘we’ she said ‘I’. I challenge you, when you receive Hansard tomorrow take the letter from Ward Keller and Hansard, put them side by side and you will see - not similar, identical. I well recall a debate we had in parliament with the member for Port Darwin regarding plagiarism. That is nothing more than plagiarism by the member for Goyder.
Since I have tabled the letter, and the member for Goyder has a copy of that letter, I will respond to the issues raised in the Ward Keller letter.
Item 1, section 202(3)(a) of the bill with regard to Aboriginal land rights: the advice received through the drafting process has not identified the issues raised as being critical. However, there are a large number of titles to be transitioned, and it will be necessary to deal with some of these case-by-case. If problems are identified they will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Item 2 in the Ward Keller letter: new transfer and dealings provisions in Division 1 of Part 7: from extensive legal advice obtained by the Department of Justice in respect of transfer and dealings, the bill is consistent with that advice.
Item 3 of the Ward Keller letter mentioned clauses 20(a), 21(2)(b) etcetera. Section 192 provides that regulations can provide for notice. This deals with the notice to landholders, and the regulations will apply.
Item 4, clause 4(2) of the bill does not reflect the purpose of the Mining Management Act. The comments are agreed; however, there is a suggestion the drafting is changed, and it will be changed.
The only area I agree with is item 5, which says the example provided at clause 11(2)(d) of the bill is misleading. The example could be better worded, and should be ‘compulsory acquisition of the title’, not land, and we intend to change that prior to the regulations being proclaimed.
Item 6, the right of occupation granted for a mineral exploration licence pursuant to clause 26(1)(a) of the bill. The right of exploration of a licence holder to occupy the land to carry out exploration is a fundamental right which needs to be recognised by other landholders and is, therefore, included in the act.
Item 7, the exclusive right to apply for a mineral lease. The issue of applying for a mineral lease for infrastructure over another person’s EL - exploration licence - will be dealt with by regulations.
Item 8, seeking confirmation regarding the operations of clause 29 of the bill - confirmed. The reduction of the exploration licence is only in the initial six-year period.
Item 9, querying whether there is any underlying purpose for the language used in clause 34. Yes, designation of a retention area is not subject to native title.
Item 10, regarding clause 38(1): notice, as suggested in the comments, is already in the bill and you can see it at section 39.
Item 11, the bill does not appear to contain the Mining Act provision which provides compensation to an exploration retention licence holder. I agree with that. This provision was not included. Historically, they have never been used – never used these provisions.
Item 12, the letter from Ward Keller states:
- We have had regard to the requirements of clause 33(2) of the MTB for a mineral exploration licence in retention and note that there is no provision for the grant of an ancillary mineral exploration licence …
Exploration retention areas for ancillary purposes are not considered necessary. Mineral leases will cater for ancillary areas.
Item 13, clause 65(3) of the bill prevents the grant of any mineral title over an existing mineral title. Yes, the intention is to allow EMPs and EMLs to be applied for and granted over an exploration licence.
Item 14, clause 76(4)(a) of the bill provides the regulations to determine the maximum size of a mineral lease and an exploration mineral lease. This comment is erroneous; clause 76 deals with survey requirements, not area, as per the letter from Ward Keller.
Item 15 is clearly a comment on drafting style, and the same applies for Item 16 of the Ward Keller letter.
Item 17, the letter from Ward Keller states:
- The test in section 78(5)(b) of the MTB appears to have the unintended consequence of preventing the grant of an EMEL within an EL …
This statement is incorrect. The bill will allow for the grant of an EMEL within an EL.
Item 18, we have received legal advice which suggests access means to enter and leave a site. Access does not mean just go in, it also means go out.
Item 19, clause 88(a). Clause 88(a) refers to damage to improvements on the land, and not damage to the land. It is not inconsistent with the bill.
Item 20, refund of rent where title is surrendered is a matter for regulation, and that you can see in clauses 190 (2)(h) and (i).
Comment 21 in the Ward Keller letter is noted. It is a drafting style issue.
Item 22, the issue has been considered and is not seen as a problem; a dealing is a dealing.
Item 23, the suggested inclusion is already in the bill at clause 130(3).
Item 24, at section 181(1) of the Mining Act, authorisation exists, therefore, a saving provision is not required.
Item 25, clause 201 of the bill, which provides for the conversion of existing mineral interests to the corresponding mineral title, does not appear to provide for the extractive mineral lease interest granted. Note, at section 104(2) of the Mining Act, the authority exists, therefore, no transitional provision is required.
Finally, Item 26 – we note the comment. The Interpretation Act preserves the title under sections 191(19) and (20) of the Mining Act.
The member for Goyder asked about authorised officers and their extensive powers. In the past it was a matter of questioning the extent of power provided by certain legislation. I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel the provisions in the Mineral Titles Bill are standard provisions sanctioned by the Department of Justice using various legislation of the Northern Territory. I can refer to a list of legislation. When I was an Environmental Health Officer I had the power to enter a premises without a warrant. I also had the power to seize items which were of interest to public health without a warrant.
Similar provisions apply to the Plant Disease Control Act, the Livestock Act, the Workplace Health and Safety Act, the Fuel Subsidies Act - in the old act which was passed in 1998 - and, of course, the Liquor Act, which gives much power to inspectors who are not police officers to search and seize, tip out liquor, or remove people from places. Those provisions include the power to use reasonable force, and we do not use reasonable force in the Mining Management Act or the Geothermal Energy Act.
I thank members for their comments. Thank you very much, member for Katherine. I appreciate the work you have done on the bill. I mean that genuinely because you put your effort there rather than read someone else’s legal advice of which you received a copy. I also thank the member for Nelson and the member for Fong Lim; he spoke about what he believes in.
My disappointment was the member for Goyder. It would not be demeaning to say: ‘I received legal advice and I am going to bring it to your attention’. Instead, she chose not to mention that. You read it like it was your own work, which is plagiarism. A briefing was provided to the member for Goyder on 3 July, and again today at 9.30 am. None of the issues raised in the House today from the Ward Keller letter provided as a copy were raised during the briefing.
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to go to the committee stage amendments and finalise this bill after six years, not eight years.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move from my current location to the chair of the member for Port Darwin.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you have my leave to do that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Mineral Titles Bill 2010 (Serial 98) together with Schedule of Amendments No 38, circulated by the Minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, Mr Vatskalis.
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.1 standing in my name.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, we had a briefing this morning, but I want it on the Hansard. We were advised this morning that the changes to clause 8 were for the purpose of having tourist fossicking, which is a commercial venture, conducted on that person’s mineral lease. Is that in case …
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, by the holder of the mineral lease.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: On their particular one?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.2 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.3 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 39, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 40:
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.4 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.5 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I move amendment 38.6 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is a new area, I presume, minister. You are now going to put a clause in this section which will be 40(1)(b)(iii) which comes under a mineral lease. Someone who wants to conduct tourist fossicking will have to do it on a mineral lease that they own, is that right?
Mr VATSKALIS: The holder of the mineral lease has the ability under the act to conduct the commercial fossicking activity, and he can conduct it in his mineral lease.
Mr WOOD: Will he have to fulfil all the conditions someone who has a mineral lease would have to fulfil?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: I am making sure I do not get lost. I am getting the numbers on the side column mixed up. I was looking at 38.10 which is really clause 83. Sorry.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.7 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.8 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 82, by leave, taken together.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, when you say 45, is 46 the extracted minerals – exploration, surface extraction and mining? Is that the area we are at? Am I reading it incorrectly? I want clarification of where to jump in and ask questions.
Mr VATSKALIS: We are moving to have clauses 45 to 82 stand as printed.
Ms PURICK: Clause 45? Madam Chair said 46 to 80 something.
Madam CHAIR: No, I am asking the committee if they wish to move clauses 45 to 82 together. If you have questions, member for Goyder, you can ask them now.
Ms PURICK: I wanted some points of clarification with regard to the extractive minerals area. What regulation governs borrow pits the government digs up to find extracted material for the building of roads? How are they regulated?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been advised there is an agreement with the department of Transport regarding rehabilitation. At the same time, this act binds the Crown. If the act is calling for rehabilitation of gravel pits, the department of Transport, or whichever government agency operates it, has to comply with the requirements of the department.
Ms PURICK: Under this legislation there is an agreement with the department of Construction or Transport that borrow pits are regulated?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is an ongoing agreement about the rehabilitation of borrow pits. What I am saying is this legislation binds the Crown. This argument is now strengthened because we can request rehabilitation of gravel pits which come under these regulations - not historical, not what happened 20 years ago, but gravel pits that are going to be extracted by government departments.
Ms PURICK: To continue, yes, the Crown is bound; I understand that. When work is undertaken at borrow pits and there is a safety issue, is that regulated by the office of WorkSafe? Do they investigate?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is correct.
Clauses 45 to 82, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 83:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.9, inviting defeat of clause 83. After clause 82, I have a new clause 83, a right to construct roads for access to title area.
Clause 83 negatived.
New clause 83:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.10 inserting a new clause 83 in the bill.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: This is an issue that came up in the briefing this morning, minister. For the purposes of Hansard, we were advised the suggestion for changing this particular clause came from Parliamentary Counsel for legal reasons. Can you explain the paradigm of thinking behind Parliamentary Counsel for these particular changes?
Mr VATSKALIS: That was a drafting change by Parliamentary Counsel. The intent of the clause has not changed; just how they put it together.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: Effectively, it does not change the meaning of the clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the intent remains the same.
Mr WOOD: I would like to raise a matter regarding clause 83(2)(a). Am I able to discuss that now?
Madam CHAIR: Which one?
Mr WOOD: It is 83(2)(a), which is to do with the right to construct roads for access to title area, and it says:
- enter land to construct or maintain a road, and do other work, to enable the title holder to have access to the title area; and …
Mr VATSKALIS: This refers to the holder of a mineral title who has to have access to his mineral lease. Clause 83 prescribes the shortest practicable route from any of the following: a council road or Territory road; a railway line; an airstrip; the sea; or a waterway. Of course, that cannot happen in isolation; it has to be in consultation with the local authority or the government to find not only the shortest route, but a suitable route. It is not carte blanche dig a road because it is the shortest. There will be other provisions applied such as environmental issues, and other things that have to be …
Mr WOOD: This might sound like the bleeding obvious, but where would it say a company has to talk to the council? If you have a road going close to a title area, so they have to use that road - it is a council road, and there might be a council drainage reserve or parkland. Is it common courtesy, or do they have to talk to the council about running a road through that property?
Mr VATSKALIS: Planning issues would be involved; there would be environmental issues involved. It is not carte blanche to dig a road. It has to comply with other requirements to build that road. Does where it is going to be put through impact on the freehold, impact on a pastoral lease, is it going to have an environmental impact? All these issues which are not controlled by the legislation have to be assessed.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I will try to give a practical example. The land on the Howard Peninsula is extractive, but it is also Crown land. They go through Crown land to get onto Thorngate Road, so when they apply for an extractive mineral lease on that land an advertisement goes into the paper. Where does it say they must negotiate with the landowner, the Crown, as to where the road out of that land will be constructed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 190 describes that. Clause 190(2)(g) says:
- the way in which a holder of a mineral title may exercise a right or entitlement under the title, which may include limiting that exercise in relation to:
It will be prescribed under regulations.
Mr WOOD: I did not catch the clause number.
Mr VATSKALIS: 190.
Mr WOOD: 190.
Mr VATSKALIS: 190(2)(g). Regulation may provide for any of the following:
- the way in which a holder of a mineral title may exercise a right or entitlement under the title, which may include limiting that exercise in relation to:
Mr WOOD: Will we be able to look at the regulations when they come up for discussion, because there are many regulations?
Mr VATSKALIS: When the regulations are drafted they will be circulated, not only to members of parliament, but also to the industry for comment and input.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
New clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 109, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 110:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move amendment 38.11 standing in my name.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: On this particular issue, the mediator will be appointed from the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.12 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is the section which allows more transparency in decision-making. I was going to ask for a point of clarification which I believe I raised at the briefing. However, if anyone has been following issues in Queensland and New South Wales regarding the coal seam industry, there has been much debate about whether this industry is going to ruin some of the best farming lands in Queensland and New South Wales. Is it possible if there was some good land - could be at Ord Stage 3, could be on the Sturt Plateau - if there was a request for that land to be protected from mining because of its value from an agricultural point of view, would it come under this clause or would it come under the general reserved land clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: The Ord River is currently reserved, however any land where this a proper application in the proper form, as prescribed in this legislation, can be preserved by the minister’s decision.
Mr WOOD: Someone could apply and ask you to reserve land based on its agricultural benefits?
Mr VATSKALIS: The new clause includes, in 3(c), the reason for the reservation. The person has to explain to the minister the reason for the reservation.
Mr WOOD: What about in relation to protection of water? In theory, the water is a mineral and belongs to the Crown. Could someone say we do not want mining there because it would use water which should be used for agriculture? Is it the same thing, or is it different because the government owns the water and a private person could not ask for that?
Mr VATSKALIS: They can apply for a reservation but the allocation of water for agricultural or other uses comes under NRETAS. That mechanism would be equally as strong as this one, and people would apply under NRETAS rather than the Mining Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.13 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is the area I get a little lost in. I had a draft amendment which said things similar to the minister’s requirements under the special reserve. My reading of clauses 113, 114, 115 and 116 is it is much shorter than I was told was going to come forward. I was expecting to see a section which spoke about the minister, made by a Gazette notice, which revoked the reservation, etcetera - very similar to the previous reserve requirements. Why has that been taken out and replaced with a shorter version?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 113(3) is very similar to clause 112(3) to (6). It is identical in (3).
Mr WOOD: Pardon me, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we are looking at amendment 38.13 on your blue sheet.
Mr WOOD: The reason for the reservation - I beg your pardon. We are doing 113(3)(c)?
Madam CHAIR: Amendment 38.13.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.14 standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: I am missing a page; that is the trouble, Madam Chair. The changes to 113 which are inserted after (3)(e), my understanding is to ensure the minister advises people. If he thinks it is appropriate, he will put a notice in the newspaper.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, a review of the reservation.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.15, standing in my name.
Mr WOOD: This is the part I thought had been changed. We had some questions during briefings over this; a draft clause (4) has been changed, but a section was going to be put in saying: ‘The minister may, by Gazette notice, revoke the reservation of all or part of’, which is similar to clause 112(6). I thought that was to be repeated under this section. It seems that has not happened, and I am wondering if you can explain why.
Mr VATSKALIS: The process describing how to do it will be in the regulations. The act provides the overall legislative framework, otherwise we will have an act which prescribes everything and will be Volume I of VII. It is better to have it in the regulations. Also, if you want to change something, it is easier to change regulations rather than the whole act.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I understand that, minister. I was trying to compare it with clause 112 where you describe what you were going to do, which was not quite followed through on the general reserve requirements. That is what I was getting at.
Mr VATSKALIS: It will be prescribed in the regulations.
Mr WOOD: Why was it left in? It appears to be left in clause 112 for a special reserve; however, it does not seem to be the same for the general reserve. I thought the two would mirror one another.
Mr VATSKALIS: The advice I received is to review all the processes for the general reservation is much longer, bigger and more convoluted than one to prescribe a special reservation. However, it will be highlighted and outlined in the regulations.
Mr WOOD: I will be looking forward to the regulations, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 114 to 129, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 129A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.16 standing in my name to insert a new clause 129A.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, what sort of personal property is referred to under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is the proposed amendment is a new clause which mirrors a proposed amendment to the Mining Act by the Personal Property Securities (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill, which is presently before the Legislative Assembly for debate.
The provision clarifies the mining industry is not personal property; it is real property. The Personal Property Securities (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Bill is part of a scheme to establish a national registration scheme. It is national legislation which we will be adopting, and under this legislation the mining industry is not a personal property, it is a real property.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am a little confused. The reference in clause 129A is the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 of the Commonwealth. Are you saying that is in the federal parliament for debate?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, and it will adopted by all states and territories.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Can you explain in layman’s terms, if possible, the upshot of inserting this clause?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is national legislation, and there are no ifs and buts; all states and territories have agreed, at COAG, to comply with it. We cannot stay out of it. That will prescribe what we can have, and everyone else will adopt it. By converting the mining property to real property is to agree with the …
New clause 129A agreed to.
Clauses 130 to 133, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 134:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.17 regarding clause 134(1).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.18 standing in my name regarding clause 134(2).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.19 standing in my name regarding clause 134(2)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.20 standing in my name regarding clause 134(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause134, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 159, by leave, taken together.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some questions.
How many declared fossicking areas are there in the Northern Territory, and has there been a new area declared in the last five years? If not, why not? When can we expect a new fossicking area to be declared given the interest we know is out there?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is about eight or nine specifically declared fossicking areas. However, fossickers can fossick on Crown land, or they can fossick in areas with the permission of the landowner.
Ms PURICK: Minister, I know that. My other question was: when was the last time a new area was declared? Given those areas have been well worked over, does the government have plans for opening up new fossicking areas?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Goyder, as I said in my speech, I have asked the department to look at the current Western Australia legislation and come back to me with suggestions about its operation, how we operate here, compare it and, if necessary, see what we can adopt from Western Australia or other states which have a different fossicking system to us. We can then proceed to declare new fossicking areas.
Ms PURICK: Minister, has the department undertaken any research work to gain a better feel for the value the fossicking sector plays to the economy? Has any work been done similar to that in other states? Has your department done any work to tell us exactly how much it is worth?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the department has not done this work. It does not have the capability to do the economic research. We can work together with our counterparts in Western Australia to find what the impact of fossicking would be, let us say, on regional tourism.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some specific questions in regard to clauses 138 and 139, which are probably a point of clarification. Clause 138 says a person who wishes to fossick on pastoral land:
- (a) after giving notice to the landowner or occupier as specified by regulation; and
(b) if required by regulation …
I am trying to understand, for the pastoral land and also exploration licence land, which is very similar wording, does the person only need to give notice to the landowner, or the tenement owner, and then access the land? Is the legislation going to be that they can give notice to the landowner, or the tenement holder, that they would like to access the land, are told no, in which case they cannot? I am trying to understand the legal responsibilities of the titleholder if a fossicker enters their exploration licence and falls down a hole, then sues the company. I am trying to get it clear in the two clauses, pastoral land and licence, if they request access and are denied it, is that okay; that is that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Clause 138(3), says:
A regulation may prescribe the circumstances when a person intending to fossick on pastoral land requires the written consent of the landowner or occupier of the land.
The way to obtain a licence, whether written or oral, would be prescribed by the regulations.
Clauses 135 to 159 agreed to.
Clause 160:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 38.21 standing in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I have some questions regarding authorised officers.
Madam CHAIR: You are a little late jumping in there. The advice of the Clerk is we can give you one last chance, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr Clerk. I am sorry for my tardiness.
Minister, I want some clarification, because I mentioned authorised officers in my speech - clause 177, General Powers. I understand what the authorised officer is, a necessary person under the legislation; however, I am very concerned with clause 177(1)(b); it is hard to understand the definition of:
- Require a person to give the officer information that is reasonably necessary:
I believe it is a little ambiguous, and if I can go through a few you can see where my concerns are.
Clause 178(2):
The authorised officer may, without a warrant, exercise any of the following powers …
- require the person to give the officer a specified thing or specified information;
Clause 178(2)(g):
- inspect, take samples of or seize any thing found in a search under this subsection;
I am also concerned about clause 179:
- An authorised officer may use reasonable force …
Minister, I cannot see where, if these things are seized and the person is detained and searched, any rights are given to the individual who has succumbed to these searches. It does not talk about any receipts given to individuals for the seizure of property. Clause 178(5):
- … after an officer seizes a thing under subsection(2)(g), the officer must:
(a) give the minister a written report about the seizure; …
That is fine. Does the person who has had this thing seized receive a copy of this report? Clause 178(5)(b):
- … deliver the thing to the minister or a person authorised …
That is fine. Does the person get these things back? I am looking at it from a legal perspective. It seems to be all for the authorised officer and not for the individual.
Mr VATSKALIS: When I was working as an Environmental Health Officer I had the power to enter premises without warrant and to seize equipment - to seize some material without any warrant. Notices to relevant people were given and were prescribed by regulation, not by the Health Act. Forms would have to be provided to the person if you seized a piece of equipment or material; it would be prescribed by regulation. This is not unique in this act. In sections 22 to 28 of the Plant Disease Control Act there are powers of an authorise officer, and section 57 refers to using reasonable force.
Also, sections 93 to 111 of the Livestock Act, especially section 101, refer to using reasonable force. The Workplace Health and Safety Act refers to reasonable force. The Fuel Subsidies Act and the Liquor Act refer to reasonable force.
We have legislation where people are not police officers. There is reference to ‘reasonable force’, and these people have to have training, be supervised and have support.
I had the argument with the member for Port Darwin, who was a policeman, over ‘reasonable force’. For a public servant a ‘reasonable force’ is totally different from a policemen using reasonable force in a different circumstance.
Again, these people will be trained and will be supervised. Should people require it, all they have to say is ‘prescribed property’. That property will be recorded, and the forms will be prescribed in the regulations.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We are taking the rest of the bill, aren’t we? Thank you.
Regulations are mentioned throughout the bill, however, I refer to the reference to regulations in this latter part of the bill. Minister, can you give an indication of how long before you expect the regulations for this bill will be completed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Following the passing of this bill the department will start working on the regulations with Parliamentary Counsel. It does not depend on us; it depends on Parliamentary Counsel and how quickly they can draft the regulations. However, work will start immediately. My intention is to have this act operational as soon as possible and we cannot do it without the regulations. We have regulations in the Mining Act. We can model on them, adopt them, adjust them and put new regulations in place, should it be required, in accordance with this act.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, I am referring to clauses 197 to 200, which talk about transitional arrangements. Can you tell me how many mineral claims - because some mineral claims will be affected by these transitional arrangements - we currently have in the Territory which would be captured under these transitional arrangements? You may need to take this question on notice: where are they and are any businesses built around them? I am referring to Grove Hill and similar places.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will take it on notice and provide the information to you as soon as possible.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. You mentioned earlier the two titles under the old Northern Territory Mining Act 1903 of South Australia are caught up in the transitional arrangements. Where are those titles located?
Mr VATSKALIS: In Maranboy; both of them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Maranboy, my old stomping ground. No problems.
Regarding the provisions around clauses 198 and 199, is there an appeal process? I am having a quick look at the act as we speak. This relates to grants or renewals of corresponding applications, or where there is no corresponding application. You said in your wrap-up speech there was an appeal process. Could you please outline that for me?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is an appeal process under section 202(3)(c)(v) and 204(d).
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. No further questions.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation – Government Response to Second Report
Council of Territory Cooperation – Government Response to Second Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Northern Territory government’s response to the second report of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
I commend the council; its work has been an evolving work. There has been much controversy about the council and that will continue, however I believe things have progressed. I believe opposition members can see the value of the council and the work it does. It has been the source of more information for the opposition, and a direct conduit to senior public servants and briefings. I believe the information flowing from the Council of Territory Cooperation has been beneficial to the governance of the Territory.
The council has examined many important issues. The report contains 14 recommendations related to Power and Water, which is a focus of the committee, and essential services.
Statistics used by the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Police in the reporting of crime are an issue of vital importance to the people of the Northern Territory. However, it was this government, under Attorney-General Peter Toyne, which undertook and carried through on regular reporting of crime statistics to the public of the Northern Territory. I believe it has brought much more stability to the debate. I know people interpret statistics in different ways, however these are statistics generated by the police and reported to the public on a regular basis. That gives a basis for informed debate, not only in this House, also in the community generally.
There were issues around the shires, non-government organisations, and Indigenous housing. It is that issue I would like to focus on today in outlining the government response, which I have in my hand and is being tabled.
In relation to the Power and Water Corporation, a number of recommendations made by the CTC have been agreed to, namely recommendations 1 and 2. The third recommendation, regarding the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer attending a CTC hearing to determine their involvement and level of knowledge of what transpired, the government does not agree with. We have a position regarding the appearance of ministers before the council. We stated, from the outset, the council could examine public servants and others such as GOCs, but it is not intended that ministers appear before the council in order to keep politics out of the council as much as possible.
Ministers continue to answer questions in parliament in Question Time and at the Estimates Committee. As members would be aware, without divulging privilege from the Standing Orders Committee, we have been given a reference via this parliament to consider the reform of estimates over a whole range of issues, and that is a very important debate occurring in the Standing Orders Committee.
The CTC recommends statistics used by the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Police relating to the reporting of crime, especially domestic violence-related crime, be accurate and consistent with one another; if not, explanations be given to interpret the differences. The Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice record offence crime statistics which are accurate and consistent for the whole of the Northern Territory. However, statistics may continue to differ at a regional level. Police, necessarily, report crime statistics based on the boundaries defined by regional command structure. The Department of Justice reports crime statistics based on national boundaries defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. There is a valid reason why there might be some differences between the two.
Recommendation 5 of the CTC says:
- … the minimum reporting times for crime statistics be reviewed to reduce the volatility in the numbers, especially when they are small, to assist in setting policy responses by government.
Recommendation 6 says:
- The council recommends that the Australian and Northern Territory governments re-establish government offices in growth towns to prevent overloading shires and non-government organisations.
The government’s position is we have noted this recommendation and, as stated in the 2010-11 Northern Territory Budget Overview, the Northern Territory government will work in conjunction with the Commonwealth and local governments to plan the staged roll-out of government business centres in Territory growth towns, providing residents with convenient access to a wide range of government services.
I acknowledge there has been much change in the bush for people – there is no doubt about that - with the intervention, the change to shires, SIHIP; a whole range of issues. I acknowledge, and many bush members acknowledge, people are having difficulties - people on local bodies, and citizens in the bush. We have to engage with them and support them. There is much work to be done, and I commend the work of local members and government officials who are working towards that end. We acknowledge there has been change, however, we have strategies. We have our worthwhile growth towns’ strategy where we look at the economy, the governance, and the future of our growth towns.
It is more than the growth towns; it is the people who live in them, particularly the young people, transitioning people from education and training into real jobs; providing real business opportunities within the growth towns; and recognising those growth towns as they have evolved as major population centres in the Territory. Some of the growth towns will rival regional centres up and down the Stuart Highway, and already do. I believe it was timely this government recognised those demographic shifts and the needs of people who live there.
Recommendation 7:
- The CTC recommends that the Australian and Northern Territory governments review the number of advisory boards and reference groups that governments are requiring growth towns establish.
In the context of what I have already said, we agree with that recommendation.
Recommendation 8:
- The CTC recommends that the Australian government reviews HOIL to ensure the housing standard meets agreed national standards for Indigenous community housing.
We have agreed with that, and the department will write to Indigenous Business Australia seeking confirmation that funds from the HOIL program are to be utilised to construct dwellings which meet existing agreed national standards for Indigenous community housing.
Recommendation 9:
- The CTC recommends that the Northern Territory government permit shires to develop an organisation structure without requiring approval from the government.
Once again, there is agreement from government on that recommendation. The comment is the Local Government Act outlines essential qualifications for council CEOs and, for those who have been around a while; this has been an ongoing problem and challenge about the qualifications and capacity of our CEOs in local shires. In many instances, there has been complete meltdown at that local level for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the one identified in the comment made by government.
We are monitoring these requirements to ensure compliance with the act, and also provide advice from time to time to assist shires in developing their organisational structures and governance issues. This is a long journey. There has been much debate about local government reform, and much heat, although it is something this government believed it had to embark on. It is a big issue and will take some time to move to where we want to be.
Recommendation 10.
The CTC recommends that refurbishment of housing include all work to return houses to functional houses that allow for healthy living, including the ability to keep houses clean.
Most of the recommendations from 10 to 14 are in the area of SIHIP; a very important area. I have ministerial responsibility for SIHIP and, as has been said on a number of occasions in this parliament, it is a massive project: $1.7bn over 10 years as part of a national partnership agreement. The first tranche of that funding is $672m over 10 years.
The member for Braitling, on several occasions, not least of all 8 June 2010, spoke about a missing $200m from SIHIP. He went through the MOU signed prior to the 2007 federal election and raised a number of issues in relation to that MOU. I have touched on some previously, but I would like to go through the claim made by the member for Braitling about a missing $200m, and I will answer the question …
Mr Giles: More of a question than a claim.
Dr BURNS: The question is quite easy to answer, member for Braitling. Turning to the MOU, under 2 and 3 it talks about existing commitments of $279.2m and new funds of $513.8m. Are we agreed so far, member for Braitling?
Mr Giles: Can you repeat that?
Dr BURNS: I am reading from the MOU. Under 2 it says: ‘Included within the total funding of $793m is $279.2m in existing commitments’. It goes through a list of what the $279.2m comprises. Under 3 it says: ‘Included within the total commitment of $793m is $513.8m in new funds which are allocated according to what follows below’. You have two components of $793m; $279.2m in existing commitments and $513.8m in new commitments. Not all that money is dedicated to SIHIP; some is dedicated to other programs within that $793m. That is very important to understand.
I will detail the amounts of money. In relation to SIHIP - you will see it in the MOU - $414.2m is designated as new constructions, repairs and upgrades - that is money for construction. In regard to some of the existing funding under the $793m, we have the strategic intervention agreement of $93.5m, which you will see under 2 in the MOU. You will also see the Tennant Creek town camp initiative at $20m, making a total of $527.7m.
The Northern Territory government put in $100m, which was not part of the $793m. That brings us to $627.7m, and there was a top-up of $45m by the Commonwealth. That $45m included $25m for projects in Nguiu, Groote Eylandt and Tennant Creek, and $20m for six communities in the southern shires. You have $627.7m plus the $45m which brings it up to the $672m.
I am more than happy to discuss it with you outside this forum. There is no missing $200m. All the money is accounted for. All the $793m, as part of the MOU, is being expended within Indigenous affairs, however, the specific amount within the agreement, the MOU, for SIHIP as outlined - and no doubt you will go through what I have said on the Parliamentary Record. I listened carefully to what you said and I went through the briefing from the department. I even constructed my own Excel spreadsheet to ensure it all added up, and I am sure you will do exactly the same.
Turning back to the report of the CTC, one of the recommendations was about refurbishments. Let me turn to recommendation 10:
- The CTC recommends that refurbishment of housing include all work to return houses to functional houses that allow for healthy living, including the ability to keep houses clean.
That is what we have endeavoured to do with our refurbishments. I know there have been disappointments in some communities, and issues raised, however, the basic focus of the refurbishments is around those very things named in Recommendation 10.
I am also on the public record saying I want to investigate the ongoing operations of SIHIP and the refurbishments; other ways the refurbishment can be delivered utilising more local capacity. On Groote Eylandt we have GEBIE taking on responsibilities and working with the alliance on the refurbishment. On Nguiu we have exactly the same thing. I know there are other shires and entities throughout the Territory with the capacity to start this work. That is where I want to go. It is a good idea, and there are many people thinking the same way. At Wadeye, it is the next step as well.
We are at the end of an election and much depends on who is the winner come Saturday night. We will not know on Saturday night. I will endeavour to work with whoever is minister post-election to move this program along. It has had its difficulties; there is no doubt about that. It has been the subject of review; we have debated the Auditor-General’s review. There was an earlier review which went to the scope of the works, and there is an Australian government auditor’s review at the end of this project. There will be ongoing reviews into SIHIP.
The reports I am receiving in relation to SIHIP are praise around both the new houses and the rebuilt houses. Of those new and rebuilt houses I have inspected, as the member for Nelson said, I would have no hesitation living in them. They are very nice houses and a credit to the contractors who have turned them out.
Instead of refurbishments we could be doing rebuilds, or new houses. At an average of $75 000 for a refurbishment, with an average of $450 000 for a new house, for every six refurbishments you can have a new house. One approach could be instead of the example of Santa Teresa, where there are approximately 70 refurbishments, you could say: ‘We are not going to do that; we are only going to have 12 new houses’. It is a very difficult decision and you are never going to please everyone. This program is an important step in addressing some of the housing issues in remote Indigenous communities in the Territory which needs a sustained effort over many decades, not just over 10 years.
Recommendation 11 is the mea culpa recommendation:
- The CTC recommends that both governments publicly acknowledge their shortcomings in implementing SIHIP.
I am on the public record agreeing with the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s report; this program got off to a very bad start for a whole range of reasons. It is not really suitable for me to say much more. Members opposite might want to continue to whip me over this, but I acknowledge there have been issues and challenges, and mistakes have been made. The public servants working on this program have done so in good faith. It is an enormous project, and an enormous logistical challenge. I commend them; they are taking the advice of the Auditor-General to rectify and build their systems. The Auditor-General acknowledged they had made progress and that needs to continue.
Recommendation 12:
- In the interests of transparency and accountability, the CTC recommends both governments establish independent building supervision and certification as part of SIHIP works.
My advice, which is in line with the comment, is the Building Act applies to declared areas of the Northern Territory, and declared building areas cover larger urban and some rural localities. As a former Planning minister, I had the debate when I introduced some of those certification rules. They generally exclude industry-owned mining towns, Aboriginal communities and pastoral leases.
Under the private building certification regime, the provision of certification services is at the sole discretion of private building certifiers operating in the Territory. In accordance with the requirements of the Building Act where SIHIP is constructing houses in declared building areas, they are obtaining building permits and, outside declared building areas, certification of houses is required as if they were in declared building areas.
There is a number of quality assurance measures built into the alliance contracting methodology, design processes, and construction and handover processes. That does not mean I am not interested if parliamentary colleagues, members of the public, or local shires have issues they want to raise regarding quality and building. I will follow up any concerns, and am very open to what people tell me about SIHIP. That is all I can say, as minister.
All standard certificates must be presented at handover to Territory Housing asset managers, who also have a responsibility to ensure works being handed over are of an appropriate standard.
To supplement quality monitoring for the program, a new independent quality assurance team is being established to inspect and assess all new houses and refurbishments delivered under SIHIP. This illustrates there are things within the system to address issues. However, we can always do better; and I am open to constructive suggestions about ensuring quality in this program.
Recommendation 13:
- The CTC recommends that the Northern Territory government provide a report detailing monies paid to Earth Connect, and work undertaken up to termination of its contract.
We note that aspect of the report. Accounts are being finalised with Earth Connect Alliance. There will be no monies paid to Earth Connect as a result of ending the alliance. There is no payout money: ‘We will pay you X so you go quietly’ …
Mr Elferink: How do you know that when it is still under negotiation?
Dr BURNS: I am telling you, member for Port Darwin, there is no payout in that respect. There is a settlement of accounts for the agreed work done; a settlement of materials from Earth Connect. That is a commercial negotiation happening at present between the government and Earth Connect. At this stage those negotiations are commercial-in-confidence; we will come to an equitable arrangement with Earth Connect. The Auditor-General commented on the appropriateness of them exiting the alliance and the whole project. I have been to Groote Eylandt and inspected some of the works there; I will leave my comments on that to another day.
Recommendation 14:
- The CTC recommends that detailed costs for the remainder of the work allocated to Earth Connect be provided to ensure Territory Alliance has sufficient funds to complete this work.
Any additional costs necessary to mobilise Territory Alliance to complete Earth Connect Alliance work will be met. This will ensure there is no impact on commitments made to any community where works are transitioning from Earth Connect to Territory Alliance. I commend Territory Alliance; they have stepped into the breach. They are a very capable Territory company.
We have targets in SIHIP; by the end of this calendar year we are looking to complete 150 new houses and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds. At Nguiu, 99 new homes are to be built under SIHIP by Territory Alliance. So far, 19 are completed, with another three under way. The Tiwi Islands are also benefiting from 69 rebuilt and refurbished homes, with work under away on another 19 …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, it is now 5.30 pm and, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended. General Business now has precedence over Government Business until 9 pm. You can continue with your remarks on the next sitting day.
Debate suspended.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ARSON) BILL
(Serial 116)
(Serial 116)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, we know people rely on their cars for their income, getting to and from work, taking the kids to school and sport, and in our remote areas, a family’s car is their lifeline in times of an emergency. A car is not just an ordinary item.
At the outset I have to acknowledge my - and many thoughts were turned in this direction at a recent horrific tragedy in Leanyer. It has caused a reassessment of the crime of arson, particularly the torching of vehicles. It is time for a reassessment. We are, sadly, seeing more and more cars stolen from work or homes, being taken for a joyride and then set on fire in the scrub. I am sure if we drive around, we see evidence of this, often after the keys are stolen from inside the building, or the cars are set on fire as people are asleep, or at boat ramps when people are out fishing and leave their vehicles behind. What a terrible end to a fishing trip, to find your vehicle burnt at the boat ramp. I do not regard the destruction of vehicles by deliberate fire as ordinary arson.
In the 2008-09 annual report there are 209 incidences of vehicle fires compared to 192 structural fires, 198 smoke complaints, and, of course, grass fires were the most common, with 1545 incidences.
Vehicle fires have increased by 64% since 2001-02. This is a significant increase and, year-on-year incidences of vehicle fires: 2008-09 – 184; slightly down in 2007-08 – 150; up slightly 2006-07 to 168, down again slightly 2005-06 to 149; then down again 2004-05. Going back, 2003-04 it is 126, slightly up again; 2002-03 - 104, which is down; and, 2001-02 - 112. The increase from 2001-02 from 112 to 2008-09 to 184 is a significant increase; a 64% increase.
Police reported that, at 22 May this year, 23 stolen cars had been torched in the Darwin region, equivalent to almost one in every 10 days. I recall there have been at least eight since then, and it appears to be getting out of control. It certainly is a threat to any perceptions of safety in the Territory.
Two vehicles were set on fire at the Hibiscus Shopping Centre in Leanyer on 13 July this year, and a car and boat set on fire, also in Leanyer. As the fire department was extinguishing the fires at the Hibiscus Shopping Centre, they received a call to attend a nearby townhouse. Another vehicle had been torched, spreading to a neighbouring residence, resulting in the tragic death of eight-year-old Nicholas Middis, and injury to his mother, who was lucky to survive burns to 40% of her body.
Madam Speaker, arson is no ordinary crime; it is a truly cowardly and hideous act.
Forensic and clinical physiologist, Dr Rebecca Doley, was quoted in the NT News describing serial arsonists as being conscious of the consequences of their actions but incapable of regret. I quote from Dr Doley:
- Very few serial arsonists express regret or remorse about the consequences of their fire setting.
From my research, many have indicated they were aware of the likely consequences in terms of lives potentially endangered and so on and chose to commit the offence regardless.
Unfortunately, the disturbing trend is continuing.
On 22 July, a jeep was set on fire in a car park under a residential building at Tipperary Waters, with another vehicle doused in flammable liquid in preparation of being torched. This was in a car park underneath a building containing many residential units which, considering the fire occurred around 3 am, were full of sleeping people. If it were not for the quick thinking and courage of individuals in putting out the fire, many more cars could have caught fire posing a significant risk for the occupants of that building. Had the fire spread to other vehicles or indeed the building, the results would have been truly disastrous, echoing the observations and analysis and conclusions of Dr Doley. Those who light such fires seem to have no regard for the consequences that may result in tragedy to others.
The interesting thing is this fire occurred only six weeks after the spate of vehicle fires in Leanyer which culminated in the tragic death of Nicholas Middis, giving further evidence to the observations of Dr Doley. It was everywhere; we all felt it as a community, yet there are those among us who have no concern and would not mind lighting a fire again.
Police believe the main reason for vehicle fires is to conceal forensic evidence of another crime, DNA, fingerprints, etcetera. My view, and the view of the opposition, is whether it be the simple theft of that vehicle, its contents, or the use of the vehicle in another crime, the reason I decided to specify trailers attached to a motor vehicle be included in this provision is because last year cars on a trailer attached to a prime mover parked at a rest stop near Ti Tree roadhouse were set on fire as the driver was asleep in the cab. An estimated $600 000 damage was done to the cars and the trailer. Thankfully, the driver was able to unhitch the prime mover from the trailer.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to consider this amendment and provide it with support so we can ensure the nature of this crime is appropriately addressed with legislation, and a response from our community.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Transport of Goods through Darwin, Palmerston and Rural Area
Transport of Goods through Darwin, Palmerston and Rural Area
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That, in light of the two fatal crashes at Coolalinga over the last 12 months involving road trains and the possibility of more heavy vehicle traffic movements in the Darwin region if the construction of an LNG plant at Blaydin Point goes ahead:
- (1) the government immediately appoint a task force of representatives from police, road safety, MVR, Department of Transport, NT Trucking Association, mining industry, pastoral industry, general freight companies, Defence, local government and other experts to review all aspects related to the transport of goods and materials by trucks through and into the Darwin, Palmerston and rural area, and
- (2) the government allow for public input into the process through public hearings or submissions.
The reason I have brought this forward is not to make a comment on the recent accident at Coolalinga; that will be a matter for the Coroner. My discussions today are not focused on that incident. I am highlighting the fact there have been two crashes at that intersection. To put it in perspective, there have been two losses of very heavy loads on the Arnhem Highway which, luckily, did not cause any injuries. They were road trains fully loaded with boulders going to the port to cover the ConocoPhillips pipeline. Members might also remember there was an accident at BP Palms not so long ago, where a truck ran into the back of a bus, hit another bus, and quite a number of young people were injured.
I thought this would be an appropriate time to do something, considering there is a large increase in traffic in the rural and Palmerston areas which moves back and forwards every day, whether for business, industry or local shopping.
I also need to say something about the trucking industry. The trucking industry has, for many years, been the backbone of the Territory economy. It has delivered goods and services from all parts of the Territory, on all road conditions, and in all sorts of weather. I am a great supporter of the trucking industry, believe it or not. I have been a small truck driver with a HR licence and carted materials and goods to Daly River for quite a number of years. I do not regard myself as a road train driver. I travelled the Daly River road long enough to know every bend, every pothole and every flooded river and creek. I knew where the road was in good condition, and in bad condition. I have travelled many kilometres behind a truck and realise you have to pay attention, even in smaller trucks, especially when you have a load on because it is different to driving a small vehicle.
A number of issues I raise today would be relevant for a task force to look at. Heavy truck movements in the rural area would be one, especially as I said when we were debating the mining bill, most of the gravel and sand for Darwin comes from the rural area. Most of our crushed rock comes from Batchelor or Acacia, and some would come from Mt Bundy, on the Arnhem Highway. You have all this within 100 km of Darwin. A large number of trucks provide the raw material needed to make Darwin grow, and we need to focus on that.
Other trucking movements involve the cattle industry; triples are vitally important to bringing large numbers of cattle into Darwin, and we also have general freight. The amount of freight coming by road is substantial. Anyone trying to get to Darwin on a Sunday night knows there are many trucks on the road because they are all getting ready to unload on Monday. Regardless of rail, we still have many trucks on the road.
There are breakdowns in the types of freight. I am not here to argue the case against triples; some people might think I have brought this forward because it is a good idea to break the big trucks up. I have not said that. We need to discuss these issues, look at the pros and cons, and have a reasonable debate. We need to look to the future, especially the future growth of the Darwin regional area, which means more traffic, more road use, more heavy loads, and more vehicles travelling those roads. I need to ensure this is kept in perspective.
We also need information about total traffic movements. I have received figures today on total traffic movement in the rural area. It is not broken up into trucks; it is a general traffic count which gives an idea of traffic movements in the area. On the Stuart Highway, for instance, 100 m north of Henning Road - and Henning Road is Coolalinga - the traffic movements in 2008, both ways, was 14 721 vehicles a day. A substantial number of vehicles are using that road. It is less on the Stuart Highway because more traffic uses it. It was 5874 vehicles a day, taken in 2008. That is using the counts one can receive from the count stations you see on the road.
An interesting one is an area close to me, Howard Springs Road, which is one of the major roads for the removal of gravel and sand. Most sand would come from that section, although some comes from Trippe Road. The amount of traffic coming out of Howard Springs Road is 6537 vehicles per day, which is more than the Arnhem Highway. It is a pretty narrow road and there is a substantial number of people who live on that road at Howard River Park. I should note, minister, I have written to the government a number of times suggesting the speed limit near that residential area be reduced because of the number of cars turning left and right. They are at risk because of the speed at which trucks can travel in that area. It is a 100 km/h road and there are no slip lanes. I make that as an aside; it is not necessarily part of this debate today, although it could be included in a task force forum.
We need to look at the different routes heavy vehicles can use to bring their materials into Darwin. There has been some discussion about INPEX, which was looking at over 165 trucks a day to bring in the loads for the Blaydin Point development. They will bring in gravel and rocks for the port they are building. Even though in their EIS they mention Lambrick Avenue, road trains are not permitted; there are signs up before you get there. The alternative to Lambrick Avenue would be Jenkins Road, which is part sealed and part gravel, although I believe the government has money set aside for upgrading. That is fine; that will take materials to that point.
The difficulty ConocoPhillips will have is taking boulders to the port because they have to cover their pipeline coming in from Western Australia. There will be a large movement of trucks with boulders coming in from Mt Bundy.
As well as that, you have cattle. Whilst we have a port and live cattle, they have to be connected. It would not be feasible to break up triples with cattle on them. You do not want to add costs to the pastoral industry, and it can create complications when dealing with live animals. What do you do with the third trailer? You have to park it, unload the cattle, ensure they are fed and watered while you take the two trailers in, or you have to have a truck waiting, hook that on and go to the port. This is an issue we need to look at carefully; that we do not make certain industries unprofitable because it is cheaper to put more cows on one truck; the same with the boulders, the gravel and the sand. If you can cart more in, in one go, it keeps the cost down.
The other issue would be expansion of the Port of Darwin. The only way to do that is with fill. The fill is likely to come from the rural area. Again, a large number of trucks will be required to take material to the port. Those are the areas we need to look at.
There is the important issue of speed. The speed limit in from the Arnhem Highway is 100 km/h, with breaks at Coolalinga for a short distance of 80 km/h. It was 100 km/h all the way to Pinelands, however, the flyover has changed that. It is 100 km/h again after Pinelands; we have a range of speed limits. My understanding is these trucks can all run at that speed. The issue which needs discussing is an appropriate speed for that sized truck in a built-up area. Is 100 km/h appropriate for triples, doubles, and large cement trucks? A person hit by a cement truck or a triple would not have any idea what hit them; it would still be a solid load and cause death or serious injury. The discussion should not only be based on whether it is a triple or a double, it should be its weight - what it is carting. If it was a load of mattresses it might not be so bad; if it is a lot of boulders it is a different kettle of fish.
The speed these vehicles can travel in built-up areas should be open for discussion. I have said publicly that 80 km/h should be the maximum in built-up areas. We need to talk to the trucking industry, road safety people, and a range of people. It might be that places like Coolalinga have a 60 km/h speed limit. It is regarded as a township. You do not drive trucks through Katherine at 80 km/h; you drive through at 50 km/h. You do not drive through Mataranka at 80 km/h; you drive through at 60 km/h. It might be annoying to people but the reality is Coolalinga is a district centre which is only going to get bigger because there is a shopping centre on the other side. Some thought needs to be given to that.
The other area is licensing. I looked at the chart and at my licence; I cannot drive triples or doubles, I need another licence. The question asked is: is there sufficient training for people driving the bigger trucks, the triples? Is there a requirement to prove you have driven a smaller truck long enough to have knowledge of driving a big truck? I have been told if you can get a HR licence - and I will stand corrected on this, minister - hold that licence for 12 months, not drive a vehicle in that time, do whatever is required to drive a triple, and away you go. There needs to be a licensing system which looks at the maturity of the driver; that is an important area.
There could be issues regarding how well trucks are maintained. On the Australian Trucking Association website mention is made of TruckSafe. It covers not only maintenance but also driver health. This is an industry-based program which could be promoted more in the Northern Territory. I will read what it says at the beginning:
TruckSafe is a business and risk management system that is aimed at improving the safety and professionalism of trucking operators nationwide.
It is an industry initiative which delivers competitive advantages to accredited operators.
3. workplace and driver health; and
4. training.
- These are the minimum standards a trucking operation should meet for it to be a safe, responsible operation. For operators, accreditation says that they are meeting their due diligence and duty of care.
For customers, TruckSafe provides confidence that contractors have responsible work practices, well maintained vehicles, healthy and trained drivers and management systems to meet their transport needs. This also helps customers to meet their own due diligence requirements.
Under Chain of Responsibility and OHS legislation, TruckSafe helps customers undertake due diligence by verifying that the contractors they use have safe work practices, safe trucks, healthy drivers and appropriate management systems.
This is something we need to promote in the industry. If we promoted the TruckSafe logo and said to people: ‘Put this on your truck in a prominent place; sell yourself as an accredited trucking company, based on industry standards’, it would be a good thing to do. It says:
- How does it work?
- For an operator to be accredited, they must meet the four TruckSafe standards listed below …
They have an implementation kit which provides templates and check lists for each standard. It talks about:
- 1 Management
As an operator, your business system needs to be documented. This documentation must cover policy and procedures for all four TruckSafe standards, responsibilities of people within the business, a system of internal reviews, and record keeping procedures.
- 2. Maintenance
Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition. To ensure and document this, the standard requires daily vehicle checks, fault reporting and recording, fault repair, scheduled maintenance, maintenance records and documentation, maintenance responsibilities, internal review and maintenance training and education.
3. Workplace and Driver Health
This standard helps operators to keep their drivers fit and healthy, and to meet Occupational Health and Safety obligations. This standard covers workplace health and safety issues, driver health screening (including medicals), rehabilitation, and fatigue management.
4. Training
TruckSafe requires that drivers are appropriately licensed and trained for the tasks that they are involved in. A policy and associated procedures help operators to plan and record this requirement.
This is one of the key things to look at in the trucking industry. It seems the industry is aware there can be problems and is doing the right thing; promoting a TruckSafe system to help the industry. That could be focused on and emphasised at this forum. If people want to access that website it is worth reading.
Another area is road design. We have a number of intersections on the approach to Darwin: the Arnhem Highway has orange flashing lights; Henning Road/Girraween Road/Stuart Highway intersection has flashing lights; Lambrick Avenue/Howard Springs Road/Stuart Highway has flashing lights; Temple Terrace/Stuart Highway has flashing lights; Deviney Road/Stuart Highway intersection has flashing lights, one side of McMillans Road/Stuart Highway, and also the Berrimah Road crossroads on the Stuart Highway. I have been told by the department that they are designed for trucks not cars. They were put there to give trucks time to stop before they approached the intersections.
It has been suggested there have only been a couple of accidents. I quoted more than two; I know of at least five, and not always at intersections. I cannot recall road train accidents at intersections except the Coolalinga one, and there may be other reasons. It seems strange you have 100 km/h intersections at Arnhem Highway, Temple Terrace, Howard Springs and McMillans Road, yet I do not recall accidents there. I say that with caution, because even though one could argue there have only been a very small percentage of accidents there, we are going to have more traffic.
Should we err on the side of being proactive and cautious and ensure we reduce risks because we are going to have more heavy trucks on the road? If we can develop systems which are not detrimental to the trucking industry and increase the safety side of the transport of these goods, that is what we should be aiming for.
We have good roads. Two roads of a lower standard would be the Arnhem Highway and Howard Springs Road. The Arnhem Highway takes a pounding, and members discussed it recently. It is not to the same standard as the Stuart Highway. It is rough and tumble in places. The Howard Springs Road is a reasonably good two-lane road but not to the standard of the Stuart Highway. It carries much traffic to and from the rural area, and some very big trucks deliver sand and gravel from that area.
There may be an aspect of road design to look at which could be part of the forum: is the road design correct?
Some say the Coolalinga intersection is on a dog leg and needs to be investigated. I have looked at it and have my opinion. I am reluctant to comment on that intersection because the Coroner will bring out a report on it. It has gone from a T-intersection to a crossroad; it has changed and is certainly a busy intersection. I do not have the numbers but Girraween Road is the busiest road in Litchfield Shire taking up to 8000 vehicles a day. Waiting on a road which feeds into Girraween Road you would think you were in the city. Around 7 am and 8 am much traffic uses that road, and it all meets at the Coolalinga intersection.
I would like to know, minister, do we have ‘scalies’? I am not trying to put ‘scalies’ down, however, travelling around my electorate I do not see ‘scalies’ on the road very often. Is there a role to play? You do not want all stick; you want some carrot, which is why I say promote TruckSafe; it is a good thing.
People in TruckSafe may have a reduction in their registration. ‘If you are accredited under this scheme, we give you 10% off your registration. Encourage the trucking industry. The stick side might be: ‘We will check if your lights are working; your brakes are working’. I travelled past a truck on the Stuart Highway recently which was purple from top to bottom. I do not know what they had been unloading, but if you could see the tail lights working, you were doing well. If he needed headlights, you would be doing well to see those. That truck driver needed to clean the tail lights because it was difficult to see whether it had brakes or indicators working.
Is there a presence of ‘scalies’ any more? I remember cars pulling up trucks, checking them, ensuring the tyres had plenty of tread. With modern equipment today you can weigh a truck on the spot; you do not have to pull them up at a weighbridge.
Covered loads have been an issue for people. If you are behind a sand truck, you have a sandblasted bonnet on your car. Trucks are a little more responsible these days in covering loads, however, it can be a problem if you are travelling behind one and they have not been watered down or covered. It is something which needs looking at.
Who is responsible for the enforcement of rules and safety? The NTG website says the Department of Lands and Planning administers the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme in the NT for Territory-based heavy vehicle operations through its Accreditation and Audit Unit. I ask the minister: what do they do in relation to that? I do not know much about it. Minister, you issued a media release last year about the National Remote Areas Consultative Group. You said:
- The advice from the RACG will be particularly important as we progress with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator.
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator is under the National Transport Commission. It says:
- A National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will release the burden of red tape which currently impacts on the productivity of the heavy vehicle industry.
Currently, each state and territory has a different set of heavy vehicle regulations, which are sometimes inconsistent, making compliance especially difficult for interstate transport operators.
A national approach to regulation will streamline the regulatory requirement for operators, reducing business costs and improving efficiency.
Where is that at in relation to the bigger picture of transport in the Northern Territory?
The last area I want to mention is Defence, which carries big loads. I have not seen any triples with Defence. An Abrams tank weighs about 64 tonnes. I realise that is not axle load; it is spread out. We would need to include Defence in any discussions because they have not only heavy loads, sometimes they have many loads. Near Howard Springs you will see convoys of heavy vehicles moving out to Defence exercises at Mt Bundy or further south. They need to be included.
I put local government in the discussion because it takes much wear and tear from heavy industry. Some roads in the rural area are council roads and they need to be part of the equation when discussing these matters.
Of course, you must have the NT Trucking Association; they are the spokesmen for the trucking industry in the Northern Territory. The mining and pastoral industries must be included, also general freight companies. They should all be represented because transport of these goods is important for the welfare and economy of the Northern Territory.
Lastly, if we are to have a task force or forum - minister, if the government is happy to have a forum I am not going to die on the stake for the wording. I would be very supportive of any review of heavy vehicle movements, and want to ensure the public is involved. They are road users as well; they would like to comment on these matters and should be involved in any task force or forum.
The Coroner is looking into the case at Coolalinga. It may be wise, if this motion is successful, to wait until the Coroner releases his findings so there is no chance of causing legal complications.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I encourage the government to consider having this forum; it is important to the safety of not only road users, also truck users, and to keep the industry healthy and strong in the Northern Territory, as it should be.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for putting this motion forward today. We will be supporting this motion.
I often meet with representatives from trucking and logistics industries, and the establishment of a task force or reference group is timely. We are on the brink of a renewed boost in our development, and the group will be able to review opportunities for road safety improvements along our main heavy vehicle access routes in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas.
I see the group as a minimum look to how we best maintain our existing heavy vehicle productivity, while looking at improving safety on Territory roads. We need to work on the makeup of the group and look closely at each stakeholder identified by the member for Nelson. I am supportive of engaging each of those stakeholder groups as part of the review, and we need to seek advice from transport professionals about which skills and sectors need to be represented on the group.
At this point, I acknowledge our very hard-working public servants, our Northern Territory Police Force and the Territory Insurance Office. All have a vested interest in and work professionally towards improved road safety outcomes for all Territorians. My support this afternoon also compliments these existing organisations or agencies, and the experts who work very hard delivering road safety outcomes.
The Department of Lands and Planning has care and control over the main arterial roads in the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson raised some very important points. To put it into perspective of where we will be going with this task force in relation to a national heavy vehicle driver’s licence, it is exactly that; a national licence and we would need to consider that in a national context.
Members will be aware the Stuart Highway northwards from the Cox Peninsula Road intersection is a multi-lane route with two lanes in each direction. There are traffic signals installed at most major junctions, with active advanced warning signs at multiple sites. There are also speed and red light cameras installed at some sites. There are multiple speed zones, and mixes of open road and built-up areas. Speed limits are based on types of development adjacent to the road, and the need to maintain the function of our road - a very important agenda item for a task force as proposed by the member for Nelson.
Heavy vehicles in the Territory are restricted to a maximum speed of 100 km/h. The Stuart Highway is obviously the Territory’s main transport corridor. Approximately 17 500 vehicles travel from the rural area to Darwin and Palmerston daily, on average. Of these, 1232, or 7% are heavy vehicles, with approximately 200, or 1% of those vehicles being multi-combination heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicles account for less than 2% of accidents on NT roads.
The Northern Territory government is planning for the expected significant increase of heavy vehicle traffic, with the full utilisation of the new port facilities and completion of the rail link. A great example of this is the Tiger Brennan Drive project; the most significant road project in the Territory’s history, in full swing, with Stage 2 on track for completion this year.
Traffic modelling has estimated when the population of Darwin and Palmerston reaches 120 000 and 200 000 respectively, the traffic volumes along Berrimah Road will be in the order of 8500 and 20 000 vehicles per day respectively. It is also expected a high proportion of traffic to and from the port will be heavy vehicles, approximately 25%.
The Tiger Brennan Drive link and duplication of Berrimah Road are critical to the economy and will make a substantial contribution to the road arterial network. Works are now under way to realign Tivendale Road to improve road safety, reduce the number of rail crossings, and improve heavy vehicle access to the industrial areas along Wishart Road. This work is progressing well, and was a key part of our bid for strategic investment into our export industries. The Tiger Brennan project will provide safe and efficient freight access in the region and reduce problems which may be encountered as urban development proceeds.
The inclusion of a rail overpass as part of Stage 3 of the Tiger Brennan Drive project, which accommodates dual rail tracks, will eliminate delays caused by trains using the East Arm port rail line. The project extends the AusLink corridor to Darwin’s East Arm Port, removing possible freight congestion points and improving safety. The Northern Territory government engages with heavy vehicle industry on a regular basis, and I am confident we will work cooperatively in reviewing the heavy vehicle access routes and reach agreeable positions on any future decisions to improve road safety.
The task force, or group, needs to be established with detailed terms of reference and a start and finish date. The terms of reference should help guide the considerations of the group, and setting some time frames will help drive the outcomes.
I propose the member for Nelson consider preparing the first draft of the terms of reference for discussion, and we meet in the near future to formalise the terms. Member for Nelson, we could consider commencing the task force once the Coroner has handed down his findings in the most recent fatality.
The other issue is the reporting framework, and I propose the group be chaired by the Executive Director of Transport, Ms Marj Morrissey. I suggest we consider commencing the group as mentioned, and have it run for approximately six months, providing its final report by 1 April 2011.
In supporting this motion, I look forward to putting the group together and working with industry on ensuring our heavy vehicle industry remains competitive and road safety issues are considered and debated.
In response to the member for Nelson’s concerns about transport inspectors, in my extensive periods spent on the road I still see ‘scalies’, and our transport inspectors are based in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. They do a great job protecting the road asset and enforcing road safety requirements, and I am very happy to share any statistics. However, the task force would be the appropriate body to research those statistics and make those recommendations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in summary, I support establishing a task force, a reference group, or body to review opportunities for road safety improvements along our main heavy vehicle access routes into Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. I look forward to progressing this positive bipartisan initiative. I support the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is good to be discussing something important. Last week parliament was very poor, and I have been horrified by some of the goings on in the Chamber over the last few days. It is good to see something important come up. I have some comments, member for Nelson, and I will attempt to reserve any political smart comments I have, although I may venture that way.
I reflect your comments, member for Nelson; the two fatal crashes at Coolalinga were devastating, and it is time to reflect on traffic conditions and circumstances in such locations. I note you have proposed a task force as part of this motion. Some thoughts which immediately spring to mind are: here we go; Labor all over again, review, review, review and no work when it should be doing things.
I note Ernie is in the advisor’s box. We hold confidence in the officials of the department of Transport to do their jobs and ensure the roads are up to speed and regulations are in place which ensure the best safety we can on our roads. You have put on this task force people who, clearly, make sense to be part of any task force you might form, such as the Trucking Association, the department, pastoral industry, freight, and so forth. I wonder why we need to put a task force together as I imagine the department of Transport spends some time consulting with these bodies already.
The intersections, the greater Darwin area, the transport industry, the doubles and triples and the things you spoke about, I hope the department of Transport is continually working with those stakeholders to ensure our roads are in the best state they can be. I worry that what we will see at the end of the task force is a further restrictive model of transport between Darwin and the rural sector with increased travel times from places like Humpty Doo to Darwin. That is a serious concern.
Both you and the minister spoke about the build-up of traffic at places like Coolalinga. That is a fair point; we need to continue looking at these things. This is something the task force can look at; vehicle movements of all sizes and shapes in the future and how we plan for that. Sometimes in places like Coolalinga we have a road set to speed, we build all around it, slow everyone down and create traffic problems for people travelling from the rural area to Darwin every day for work. Perhaps we should be developing away from the main arterial roads because, in the future, we will attempt to build a freeway around the main urban centre we have just built. It will be built around the road to decrease traffic times.
You spoke of the speed of trucks in areas such as approaching Pinelands and the new flyover; it is quite reasonable for the task force to look at that. I am a proponent of open speed limits. You drive through parts of the Territory where you believe there should not be a speed limit, however, in other parts, such as areas you have mentioned, you think: a truck should not be driving through here at 100 km/h. That is a good area to look at.
The Country Liberals will be supporting this motion. I note you do not have a time frame on the task force, so I am unsure when it will report. I hope this is not a forever thing. We heard ads during the last federal election, and this one, about review, review, review, review. I hope this does not continue forever-and-a-day. This is something we need to fix now.
I was going to move an amendment asking for the department of Transport to do an immediate review of major intersections within the greater Darwin region and report back to parliament in a month or two with any concerns. Any urgent matters identified would be fixed under the auspices of the Minister for Transport. I will not do that now, although that is a serious concern I have with this task force; people may die at these intersections because we have procrastinated for too long thinking about a task force and spending money getting these people together. Yes, they are stakeholders and I know the Transport department consults with stakeholders; I know the minister meets with them. I do not think we need to go over the top with this; it needs to be thorough and as fast as possible.
We need to ensure our roads are safe, give greater consideration to planning when designing roads, and consider transport needs of people moving between those areas. If you think there is trouble now for people moving from the rural area into Darwin to work, if we slow traffic down and put more lights in it will be worse for people; they will become more frustrated which impacts on their lifestyle and their sense of home environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go any further; I do not think I need to. We will support this, member for Nelson, and thank you for bringing it on.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague’s comments and welcome the motion from the member for Nelson regarding a task force. I have several general comments.
I do not want to take anything away from the accidents; they are tragic and there has been loss of life. However, there has been loss of life at other major intersections along the Stuart Highway, notably the Arnhem Highway intersection. In line with some of the amendments we were planning to bring forward, I was going to suggest we need to look at the traffic flow and road safety systems for the greater Darwin rural area down to Adelaide River, including the Batchelor area, because there are some major intersections coming onto the Stuart Highway.
I also ask the government, if they are agreeing to this motion, to seriously look at the major arterial roads coming onto the Stuart Highway in the rural area, notably Virginia Road and Bees Creek Road. With the realignment of Girraween Road into the Henning Road intersection, in particular, traffic flow has changed. I can see it because my office is there, and we have stood on the side of the road watching the traffic flow. It has changed so large blocks of cars go through Coolalinga and down past the Virginia turn-off and up towards the 15 Mile hill. The intersection at Virginia is difficult and unsafe. I know government has been petitioned before about slipways. I understand it would be expensive to put a slipway in because it is quite a drop-off from the highway at the Virginia Road intersection. However, I ask the terms of reference of this task force include looking at slipways from Virginia Road to the Stuart Highway and Bees Creek Road.
I suggest Bees Creek Road because the two major schools are there, and the childcare centre. In the early morning, you have, heaven forbid, ‘peak hour traffic’ coming onto the Stuart Highway. You also have people accessing Freds Pass Road - an enormous amount of traffic. There have been crashes at that intersection but no fatalities. If it is going to be a comprehensive review of our traffic flow, you need to consider these areas, plus the Arnhem Highway intersection, because that is a very busy intersection.
There is no doubt traffic flow is increasing because more people are moving to the rural area with each development. They invariably have two, three, or four cars per property. They usually travel down the Stuart Highway. The minister has relayed the figures; there are probably even more with the activity around our East Arm port. Even today, the announcement of a marine supply base will mean much development; many trucks are going to come from the rural area into East Arm for whatever reason, so we need to look carefully at how that traffic flow will be managed.
There has been much comment on the recent accidents at Coolalinga but people tend to look at what has happened after the event. Somehow, this task force needs to look at other aspects which are difficult to analyse and review; that is, the behavioural management aspect. Sadly, there is a view in the community - and I am trying to enlighten people - a green light does not mean it is safe; a green light means it is your turn to go. We have all grown up with this attitude that, because it is our green light, it is our turn to go, regardless.
I would like to see, as part of the work of the task force, some consideration of how we change people’s attitudes to get a cultural shift in how we go about our movements on roads, because we are all bad at it - let us be honest, we are all bad at it. We have all done something wrong over time; we have all received tickets in some shape or form.
That goes to my last point - and I am not 100% sure if the Road Safety Council still exists - is there going to be a relationship between this group and the Road Safety Council. If the Road Safety Council does not exist – and I believe it should - in light of the growth of Darwin and the greater rural area, and the advent of Weddell, we need to reinvigorate the Road Safety Council and charge them with this kind of task because this would sit squarely within a road safety council’s parameters. If it still exists that is good. I would like to know the relationship between this task force and the Road Safety Council.
In the course of the work of this task force, which presumably will be in a finite time frame, they will call for presentations, representations, groups like the pedestrian council and like-minded organisations. The representative bodies could easily be broken down into key industry groups. You would pick up all the freight companies; you would go to the Australian Trucking Association, Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council, and the Cattlemen’s Association. You would probably get them all, along with local government, which has a big part to play in roads.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they are my comments at this point. I hope the government takes them on board so we can work towards making that big chunk from Berrimah lights down to Adelaide River, and the main roads to and from, a better place. It will need some funding commitment by government, particularly towards slipways. Perhaps government is looking at these things; however, they need to look more carefully, bring them up the agenda and commit some real funds so we can access the main highway in a safer way, particularly at peak times.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank those people who have commented on this motion; it has made me think. The member for Braitling had a few ideas. But he stated the obvious; naturally the department has done much work. I have seen their maps and their plans. We have had a few discussions about the design of anything from the Noonamah car park to the service roads in Coolalinga. That is part of my job, and the job the department does. They do much work on this, and we may be able to shorten that because the member for Braitling made some useful comments. It would be good if we can get this task force together quickly, discuss these issues based on the knowledge already out there, and come up with solutions before 1 April. We will be kicking ourselves if there is another accident and we have not acted quickly.
I thank you, minister, for government support. I would be very happy to sit down after the sittings and work out a terms of reference. I would want some help from the experts. I do not regard myself as an expert when putting this up; I regard myself as a road user who has lived in the rural area for a long time. I am an average person who has concerns. I will rely on experts for their opinions, their input, and that is where I will be looking for the good ideas.
Let us not leave out the public. The public uses roads too and we should allow for public submissions. There are plenty of retired people out there who might have some good ideas.
The member for Braitling mentioned shops along Coolalinga. If I had half-an-hour I would explain why that happened. This case is a special story, however, it is not perfect. The circumstances at the time Coolalinga was developed related to a dispute because some who lived there felt it was unfair of the government to move existing commercial people to Freds Pass District Centre. A number of people had businesses there - Len Cant ran a caravan park, Chris Patsalou ran the stock feed, Stavri might have had some vegies; that was the limit.
The government wanted to develop a district centre at Freds Pass near the Christian school. There was much discussion and the government decided it would limit the amount of development at Coolalinga. That limitation still exists. It is now being filled in with shopping centres, some fast food suppliers are going into the area, and naturally the amount of traffic has increased. It is a good point, and I have no doubt there will be another set of traffic lights at Coolalinga one day to manage the service roads on either sides to ensure safety.
Not wanting to get stuck behind vehicles and going through heaps of traffic lights is another good point. We need to work out ways of ensuring traffic lights are coordinated for traffic flow. It may be the speed limit for vehicles stays the same; it may be simply to slow the bigger trucks down. Flow of traffic is important, not always the speed. As long as vehicles keep moving people are usually happy.
It raises the point of the amount of traffic on the roads and more emphasis on public transport. It is always a hot potato; I say rail, the department says buses. I say rail; they say: ‘No, no, no, buses’. At least the government is being proactive. Two ‘park and ride’ areas are being established, hopefully this financial year - one at Coolalinga and one at Humpty Doo. I hope there are more. If it is promoted and we can get more cars off the road, that is a positive thing. The amount of traffic going into Darwin, when you join the two highways together and Howard Springs, is around 16 000 to 18 000 car movements there and back per day. If we can keep that limited by offsetting the number of users on the road – have good public transport, express buses - that is a good thing as well.
The member for Goyder raised several issues which have been around for some time; a slip lane at Virginia and one at Bees Creek. The task force could look at the intersection. I imagine the department has done much of that work; they do the slip lanes. On the Arnhem Highway, the slip lane on the left into Produce Road - there has been a redevelopment of Produce Road because there was a fatality there several years ago. Lights have been put up and the bicycle path has been moved.
There have been changes at Freds Pass Road and the Arnhem Highway at Humpty Doo; there has been a widening of the road for a left-hand turn. That is a very busy intersection and I should not leave that out of the equation. There is an 80 km/h zone through the area near the Humpty Doo shopping centre which is relatively short. It has been suggested the 80 km/h zone should be longer to go past the industrial area at Spencely Road. That could be looked at.
Not only is there heavy traffic but many tourist vehicles use that road - big coaches going to Kakadu. It is a fairly well-used part of the road, not only for through traffic to Kakadu, but people going to the schools. You have the biggest high school in the Territory, and St Francis Assisi School, Humpty Doo Primary, the after school care, an early learning centre, the shopping centre and commercial or light industrial area as well. That area certainly needs looking at. The government must have plans to widen the Arnhem Highway because it has been buying up parcels of land.
The member for Goyder raised the issue of behavioural matters. I am not saying I always drive that way; I was told to drive defensively. If you come to an intersection, be prepared to stop; do not be prepared to race it. You still see, time and time again, the lights are orange and people put their foot down. That is terrible. There was an accident about a year ago on the corner of McMillans Road and the Stuart Highway where a car T-boned another car doing a right-hand turn. It pushed the car up onto the median strip and the passenger was killed instantly. Someone had come through that intersection at very high speed.
We need to educate and remind people through programs similar to the one at the moment about road safety for bicycles. It is a good advertising program. There should be something similar about intersections.
The red light cameras - perhaps the task force could see if there has been a reduction in people being booked at places like Deviney Road, Berrimah Road and Amy Johnson Avenue. Has there been a reduction because people know there is a red light camera and they slow down otherwise they will be fined?
What the member for Goyder said about the Road Safety Council was good. We mention road safety in our motion, which was put in deliberately to look at those types of organisations being involved.
I thank the government and the opposition for supporting this motion. It is a broad motion; I am not the expert. I need advice from the minister, and the minister’s department, on who these people should be. The member for Braitling, or the member for Goyder, was right: we do not need representatives from every trucking company; we need representatives from the association. The trucking association might be sufficient, however, we deal with the cattle industry - the live cattle industry especially. I am not sure if there is a live cattle transport group or whether the cattle industry would want to be involved. I believe there is a live cattle transport group. They need to be involved. We need to keep it a tight group, but we need a group that knows its business, knows the industry, and knows the issues.
I have nominated the department of Transport. I was not trying to put off the Department of Lands and Planning; I become confused as to who is who in the department, between Construction, Transport, and Lands and Planning. It is difficult to know who, but I am sure people in Lands and Planning will be on it as well.
I had forgotten about rail crossings. We have had two road trains take on a train. One was the other side of the Elizabeth River Bridge and one further down the track, both involving heavy trucks. Perhaps because it was not close to a main shopping centre it had its moment and was forgotten. That is an area, minister, we should be looking at.
I thank the minister for his support. I am happy to help work out the draft references, and maybe we can negotiate the amount of time required. I take it from the experts. If this information is already available, let us use it. I do not have time to reinvent the wheel. If people have the information ready, let us go with that. If we can bring it forward, let us do so and come back with good recommendations we can implement if need be.
Minister, I would like to emphasise the TruckSafe program. I discovered it after I put this motion forward. There is a place for promotion within our trucking Industry. If it is possible to promote it by giving the trucking industry discounts on registration or something - if you belong to this we will reduce registration costs - that would be the way to go.
Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers who have supported this motion today.
Motion agreed to.
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
(FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 88)
Continued from 11 August 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Greatorex has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, thank goodness for General Business Day is all I can say. We seem to get through some real work in this House. On the Notice Paper for tomorrow there are four items. If it was not for the member for Port Darwin bringing on an MPI, we would probably be out of here by the usual knock-off time these days, about 7 pm to 7.30 pm, so we can all have a long weekend. Thanks to the member for Port Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: The minister has indicated he will not be supporting this bill. To me, it was pretty straightforward, bit of a no-brainer; something the Health Complaints Commissioner has been calling for, for a long time. He thinks, because we have not consulted widely and broadly - which is incorrect according to the minister - this bill deserves to be not supported.
They want to send it back to another committee, a review, whatever it might be, to flesh it out; to have complete unanimous stakeholder agreement on it. Hence, he will not be supporting the bill, despite a call from the Health Complaints Commissioner to implement such a bill. Indeed, it was recommended in the original review. That review was completed in 2003, by the Labor government, and handed to the Health Minister in April 2004 …
Mr Tollner: Who was the Health minister then?
Mr CONLAN: I think it might have been the member for Nightcliff, the member for Johnston …
Mr Tollner: In 2004?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, 2004. I could stand corrected. Nevertheless, I remember the member for Johnston, in his bungled capacity as the former Health minister, say he would look into this. Whether he forgot about looking into it, he was very apathetic about it or ambiguous, as he is with all his duties, he did not get around to it. Perhaps he was just sacked from his job as Health minister before he could.
The recommendation was already there; where that review is, heaven knows. Somewhere on the fifth floor, no doubt, lost in mountains and mountains of good legislation and good reviews …
Mr Tollner: Might find it tucked away in a filing cabinet of the member for Nightcliff.
Mr CONLAN: Perhaps it is. I am sure it is in someone’s filing cabinet.
It is plain and simple: if these recommendations were implemented it would see the end of the culture of cover-up that has been the signature of the Martin/Henderson Labor governments - eight long years of a culture of cover-up. Heaven forbid we see the end of the culture of cover-up.
The former minister for Health, the member for Johnston, was the king of the culture of cover-up. We saw that in his attitude towards his Health portfolio and, indeed, his undoing was the result of his culture of cover-up; that is, failing to provide hospital board reports from our hospitals across the Northern Territory. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There was a litany of failures from the member for Johnston, including his failure to get across his new job as the Leader of Government Business.
There are seven items of business on the government’s Notice Paper, yet we are unable to, in the hours and hours we have dedicated in this Chamber, to get through the government’s business on the Notice Paper. For what reason, I do not know. It must be the lazy, moribund, inept government attitude or, more to the point, the member for Johnston is once again proving he is not up to the job. He has had demotion after demotion after demotion, yet he cannot run the government business agenda; we still have seven items.
The Country Liberals developed this bill, introduced it as a result of comments made by the Territory’s Health and Community Complaints Commissioner in her annual report, and my concern over the government’s blatant apathy in the face of continual systemic failures facing the Northern Territory health system.
Mr Tollner: You have done a very good job.
Mr CONLAN: It is a very good and comprehensive bill, member for Fong Lim. It is an absolute no-brainer. The government will eventually bring in a carbon copy of this bill and claim all the kudos. That is fine. You can do whatever you like as long as we get this up. It is very important for the people using our Northern Territory health system to feel any complaints made about the system will be followed up by the Health Complaints Commissioner …
Mr Tollner: You would not want the Leader of Government Business bringing that bill in. It might end up on the bottom of the Notice Paper.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr CONLAN: That is right. As it stands, the Health Complaints Commissioner has no power to investigate her own recommendations. I believe that is very important. It is a modern step, it is the appropriate way forward in a modern, complex health system with an enormous number of people utilising it, particularly in the Northern Territory, and right across Australia. In the Northern Territory, our five major hospitals are under enormous pressure.
The two big hospitals, Alice Springs and Darwin, are under constant pressure, day in, day out. There are always going to be instances of concern. There are always going to be people who slip through the cracks inadvertently, and those people need to have their concerns and complaints dealt with in an appropriate manner. We cannot rely on a government, or a minister, to allow the investigation of those complaints, or disallow the investigation of those complaints, depending on whether it is good news or bad news. More often than not, it is bad news when someone falls through the cracks. It should rise above politics and the longevity of the current minister and their job security. This is about Territorians’ welfare in utilising the Northern Territory health system.
It is pretty simple, and the minister outlined some of those concerns. Why we have to send it to another review, another committee, send it off for more consultation, is beyond me, particularly when we already have that review sitting in someone’s filing cabinet - whether it be the member for Nightcliff’s filing cabinet, the member for Johnston’s filing cabinet, or the member Casuarina’s filing cabinet …
Mr Tollner: You could say Peter Toyne has it.
Mr CONLAN: I thought about Toyne; however, I do not think so. It is probably in someone’s filing cabinet somewhere up there. Why can we not get this and implement those recommendations? This is very important; it is a modern step forward in addressing the concerns of the Territory health system.
First, the act does not allow the commissioner powers of own motion investigation as I stated. Section 12(1)(a) of the act restricts the commissioner from investigating matters that are referred to her by the Legislative Assembly or through a formal complaints process. That, to me, is completely wrong. The Health Complaints Commissioner should have those powers available to her, particularly when we are dealing with something as serious as the health of Northern Territorians. This is the way to go. A government which does not allow this has only one thing on its mind - their culture of cover-up. They clearly have something to hide, or are very concerned about what the Health Complaints Commissioner might uncover if she was able to go in on her own bat.
Second, the commissioner has no power to investigate the progression or implementation of recommendations made in these reports. This is a specific amendment to the act called for by the commissioner in her 2008-09 annual report. She points out she is unable to investigate the implementation of agreed recommendations, and she cannot confirm which of those recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. It leaves the complaints commissioner out in the cold. The commissioner has stated in her 2008-09 report:
- This, in my opinion, is a flaw in the efficacy of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act and I recommend that, when considering any amendment to the act, the Minister give due consideration to empowering the Commissioner to seek information about implementation of agreed recommendations and to report further to the Legislative Assembly if appropriate.
There it is in black and white from the commissioner. It is a straightforward, clear recommendation and should be supported. If the government insists on not supporting it, then it needs to, after having a very long, hard look at itself, do everything possible to bring in this amendment. We will support it, I can promise you that.
I am not surprised the minister has not supported the bill; it is too much hard work. We have seen the track record of this government, particularly over the last couple of years, and its ability to get through the government business agenda at all. Thank goodness for MPIs and General Business Day brought on by the opposition. We are prepared to work right through the night; we started that. You chopped us off at 9 pm, and we are flat out getting there. If it was not for these GBDs, we would be well and truly out of here. I bet London to a brick about it. Just as well the opposition is here.
Throughout the course of this debate issues have been raised about the Country Liberals, the conservative side of politics, and our attitude towards health. The Country Liberals are dedicated to providing world-class healthcare to Territorians, as is the federal Coalition. Only a few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and the shadow Health minister, Peter Dutton, announced the Coalition’s Mental Health Policy. It was described by mental health experts as visionary, touching 100 000 young Australians afflicted by mental illness.
The shadow Health minister, at the National Press Club last week, outlined some of the points. The plan is to open an additional 60 headspace sites across the country, and 20 early psychosis prevention and intervention centres, where 800 acute and sub-acute beds will make a big difference in changing lives for the better. He said it was a large investment - about $1.5bn. If the Coalition is elected this Saturday, it will be the second biggest investment in mental health in the country’s history, with the largest being a $1.9bn investment in 2006, when Tony Abbott was Health minister. In many ways it was a tangible demonstration of the different approach to health by the Coalition, and the state and federal Labor governments.
We have seen where state Labor has taken health. As a result of their apathy towards and their complete inability to manage health, we have a situation where, if elected, the Labor government is poised to take over the health system. It is called health reform; it is nothing like health reform. It is not health reform; it is simply a change in the funding split. Nevertheless, as a result of poor management by long-term Labor governments, the health system in this country has been brought to a situation needing federal intervention. This is not a fault of the system. I believe in the system, and I believe a good, well-managed government can deliver proper health services to its jurisdiction. Under long-term state Labor governments, we have seen this eroded to a point where the federal government is poised to take it over.
More than ever, the Australian people are looking at the capacity of a government to not just promise, more importantly, to deliver. It is very important we point this out because time after time we are dealt mistruths, and history is rewritten for the sake of scoring political points or painting the opposition into a corner. We should all burn up and go away because we have no idea and have brought this country to its knees. If it was not for the Labor party there would be no Northern Territory or, indeed, no Australia.
A member: Hallelujah!
Mr CONLAN: Hallelujah, exactly. Thank goodness.
When the Coalition was in government it increased the immunisation rate of children from just over 50%, to 90%. It lifted private health insurance coverage from mid-30% to 45%.
There was an increase in the total investment in health from $20bn from 1995-96, the dying days of the Keating government, to $51.8bn in 2007-08. That was quite an achievement, and quite a substantial increase. They improved access to pharmaceutical benefits, with increased expenditure in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme from $2.2bn in 1996–97 to $6.4bn in 2006–07. They increased funding for medical research from $127m - and the member for Johnston might remember this in his role at the Menzies School of Health Research - an increase in funding for medical research from $127m in 1995–96 to $544m in 2007-08. Not a bad achievement and not a bad investment in health research at all.
There were nine new medical schools across the country; 3700 additional commencing nursing places between 2005 and 2007; and access to $4250 of Medicare benefits over two years for dental services for patients with chronic illness. That was a wonderful initiative which allowed people suffering from serious dental issues relating to their chronic illness $4250 worth of dental work. The Rudd/Gillard government moved to abolish that. I believe it is still in place.
Those are some of the achievements of the Coalition in health. When you hear this tired old line about …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: They are tangible achievements; money has gone in - an input and an outcome. That is what we saw with the Coalition over their last 11 years of government. A great track record and I am sure, under the stewardship of the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, that will continue and, no doubt, under the stewardship of Tony Abbott, if elected Prime Minister, that will continue and increase.
The Coalition has a great record on health, as do the Country Liberals. If you a look at the figures from …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you that you are closing debate on the Health and Community Services Complaints Amendment, and note Standing Order 67 - Digression from Subject:
- No member shall digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion.
Madam SPEAKER: We have allowed more than 10 minutes digression. I am asking you to bear in mind, member for Greatorex, this is a bill you put before the House.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Madam Speaker. Shall I continue?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you may continue.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, thank you for the guidance, I appreciate it. I am responding to claims made throughout the course of this debate. I have addressed areas of this bill. As is the right of each member in the allocated time to respond to claims and allegations made by those also contributing to this debate, that is what I am doing.
There has been much talk in this debate about the Country Liberals’ record on health. I believe the Country Liberals have a strong track record in delivering health services across the Northern Territory. At the moment we have some of the worst and longest hospital waiting lists, for both emergency surgery and elective surgery, in the country. We have been that way for quite a few years. The latest The State of Our Public Hospitals report paints a pretty bleak picture of the situation in the Northern Territory. We are only in front of Tasmania and, in some cases, the ACT - not a great track record. A decade ago, 90% of patients waiting for elective surgery were operated on within the recommended time - 90% of people who turned up needing elective surgery were seen to in the recommended time.
Fast forward to 2009, eight years after this government was elected, and the figure has dropped to 69% and is falling. In 2001, the median time for elective surgery was 25 days. In 2006-07, six years after this government was elected, it was 35 days. In 2007-08, seven years after this government was elected, that figure had blown out to a whopping 43 days. We have gone from 25 days to 43 – nearly double. Not a great track record; not a lot to hang your hat on. No doubt the member for Johnston contributed to that, as had previous Health ministers.
The median waiting time of 43 minutes in emergency is the longest in the country; up from 39 minutes last year. Further, only 52% of patients in Northern Territory emergency departments are seen within the clinically recommended time for their triage category. It is not a great track record. The government has little to be proud of in this area.
This was an opportunity to do something right for Territorians, for the Northern Territory, by supporting this bill. It is very simple. You have had plenty of time to look at it, yet you cannot bring yourselves to support something positive and do something positive for the health and wellbeing of Northern Territorians. For the first time in your lives, do something positive. Let us do something for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Tollner: Can you tell us which one was worse?
Mr CONLAN: That is a very good question, member for Fong Lim, which might require a little research. It is hard to tell who was the worst because it is such a close race. On a bad day there were no Health ministers in the Country Liberals who came close to the ineptness and laziness of the crop of Health ministers we have seen over the last eight years …
Mr Tollner: They were never as bad as the best of them.
Mr CONLAN: I think you have it; you have the picture.
This was an opportunity to support legislation which would see something positive; perhaps lift the cloud off the culture of cover-up you have been tainted with that everyone knows is the hallmark of the Territory Labor government. This was a chance to say: we are open and transparent, we do not have anything to hide, bring the complaints commissioner into the picture and allow her these own motion investigation powers. It is pretty simple.
We stand firm on our record, and the Coalition stands firm on its record. It has a wonderful track record, which I have placed on the Parliamentary Record. Real action is the catch cry, and the Coalition, under Tony Abbott, is delivering real action, has delivered real action, and will continue to deliver real action. We will take a leaf out of their book: if we are elected at the next Territory election we will support real action. We will not just spend money, we will deliver outcomes. It is pretty simple, and is not hard to do.
Madam Speaker, it is very disappointing the minister, and the government, refuse to support it although not surprising. It is 7.15 pm; it is nearly time to go home.
Motion negatived.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (GRIEVANCES) BILL
(Serial 86)
(Serial 86)
Continued from 24 February 2010.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, the primary objectives of this bill put forward by the member for Blain are to mandate the Police Commissioner resolve grievances lodged by members within six months, and allow the minister to approve a three-month extension for the resolution of a grievance under certain circumstances. The government believes this bill is flawed on a number of grounds, including it is bad policy and practice to involve a minister directly in a member’s grievance or employment issues. This is a long-standing convention, and this bill sets up a very bad relationship between a minister and employees - albeit police officers who are statutory officers - if this bill were to become law.
Excluding ministers from involvement in employment issues of the kind contemplated within this bill is a generally accepted policy and practice in public sector employment. This practice is based on sound administrative principle. This principle is expressed, for example, in section 22 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, which generally prohibits ministers from involvement in relation to a public servant’s employment, which is entirely appropriate; we should not be involved in such processes.
Not all grievances are capable of resolution; they are often complex and can be referred to other forums in the civil jurisdiction. No one would disagree with the principle that employee grievances should be considered in a reasonable time frame with a view to achieving resolution of the relevant matter in the first instance. However, the bill, as drafted, is flawed in its approach to these issues. The new Police Commissioner is reviewing provisions in the Police Administration Act, in consultation with the Northern Territory Police Association. Both the commissioner and the association agree the government should wait until that process is finalised before considering amendments to the act.
Madam Speaker, in this context, the government does not support the bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a response by the opposition to address a real problem, one which has been long expressed by members of the police force: that matters need to be dealt with in a time frame which ensures there is progress, and there are some parameters around the resolution of difficult matters.
We know the problems that arise from allowing drift when it comes to resolving grievance, and it is good practice to recognise there needs to be a response to the unresolved nature of grievances and how they can affect the morale and culture of an organisation.
It is surprising, then perhaps not surprising, that this Labor administration’s principle objection is they do not want to take responsibility, and there is an aversion to ministerial accountability. I note the clever way it has been crafted to provide them with space to stand; they do not want to inject themselves into the process. Ultimately, responsibility is borne by the minister; otherwise there would not be a minister.
There is a requirement, a full stop, a mechanism, whereby matters of concern can be corralled and managed, and there can be some expectation these matters be dealt with in a timely manner. It is a shame the opportunity to accept responsibility and place those real parameters around the resolution of grievances has been backed away from by the Labor minister, by this Labor government, because there is a need for a response. If this is recognising the reluctance to assume responsibility and to set some parameters and back away from that, sadly that appears to be the form. There is no description of an alternative response. There is no recognition there is a problem.
The problem is if the opposition has an idea they reject, they give their explanation, but there is no recognition of the underlying problem from the point of view of government, nor is there the description of any alternative course of action. That is disappointing. I would have expected, at least, some acknowledgement of a problem and some attempt as a means to address that problem.
Nonetheless, I hope as we go to a decision on this matter, there needs to be that ultimate responsibility borne by a minister to ensure - not so much injecting into the process and making sure they need to be aware of certain elements of the grievance – no, it is to ensure if you do not set an expectation, a standard, a parameter, it is going to drift as it has. Ultimately, it is at that level to ensure there is a response in 14 days and it is dealt with within six months. That is all the minister needs to know, so these matters do not drift forever.
Response in 14 days, dealt with within six months. If it is exceptionally complex, at that point the minister sanctions an extension, and there has to be a good reason. If there has been a response, there has been six months to attend to it and you need more time because it is complex, there is the requirement, you would assume, for the minister to be aware there is a complex matter at hand. These complex matters, if not dealt with, affect the culture of an organisation, of which the minister is ultimately responsible.
There has been an excuse made for not supporting this. There has been no attempt made to provide an alternative solution, which I find immensely disappointing. No responsibility taken, no innovation with regard to a response to a real problem, and I find that a real shame. I am certain, as members reflect on this, they would be able to make their own judgment. Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this important amendment.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Defer General Business – Information Amendment (Fees) Bill (Serial 83)
Defer General Business – Information Amendment (Fees) Bill (Serial 83)
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this matter be held over until such time as the member for Drysdale is in a position to pursue the matter further. I put on the record my thanks to members for their courtesy.
Motion agreed to.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (FORFEITURE AND IMPOUNDING ORDERS) BILL
(Serial 97)
(Serial 97)
Continued from 28 April 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, in relation to Traffic Amendment (Forfeiture and Impounding Orders) Bill 2010 (Serial 97), the bill does not have the support of government. There is no doubt drink-driving is a problem in the Northern Territory. I have stated, on a number of occasions, the statistics relating to drink-driving offences are nothing to be proud of.
I have described how the Territory has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for drink-driving offences, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in these statistics. People who drink and drive are a danger to themselves and every other Territorian on the road, which is why they face prison time. This amendment does not attempt to address or improve the issue of drink-driving on our roads. This bill proposes to introduce a new penalty points system for drink-driving offences. We do not need a new scoring system. We need evidence-based policy which we know will make our roads safer.
The proposed increase in penalty points, depending on the level of offence, ultimately resulting in impounding and forfeiture of a vehicle - these points will stay active for a period of five years. If an offender has three, but less than six active penalty points, the police may apply, prior to a person being found guilty, for an impounding order of 48 hours for the vehicle used in committing the offence. If a person has at least six active penalty points, the police may apply, prior to a person being found guilty, for a forfeiture order for the vehicle used in committing the offence.
The bill also makes a finding of guilt for a previous low-range drink-driving offence for the purposes of determining whether a high or medium drink-driving offence is a second or subsequent offence. We need to ask the question, why? What effect will this have on reducing drink-driving accidents on our roads? Vehicle sanctions are used in relatively few countries around the world as a penalty for drink-driving, being limited only to some areas in the United States of America, New Zealand, and a number of Canadian provinces. The New Zealand experience shows many vehicles impounded are often never collected. The authorities are left with numerous old cars they must store or dispose of, at additional cost. Territory police expect a similar situation would occur in the Northern Territory.
A discussion paper prepared in the Australian Capital Territory identified a number of social equity and other issues with vehicle confiscation, including unintended effects on family member; the possibility of inconsistent application of the law as some offenders may not be subject to this penalty if the vehicle used in committing the offence is not their vehicle and was used without the knowledge and consent of the owner; logistical and administrative problems, particularly in remote and regional areas; cost associated with administering the scheme; and low retrieval by owners of the vehicles.
What are the expert views? I thank the member for Braitling for taking the time to be briefed by the George Institute for International Health. The institute is an internationally recognised organisation with extensive experience in providing independent, strategic road safety advice to state, territory and federal governments in Australia and overseas. These experts have told us confiscation of vehicles is not effective. They have said it is a very expensive approach to address driver compliance with very little benefit as a deterrent. The lack of alternative travel options is an issue in remote and regional areas. The removal of a vehicle may result in a family having no other means of travel to major centres to access basic services.
The bill required the registrar to maintain a penalty point register which records the sex and age of the offender, and whether the person is identified as Indigenous. Data on Indigenous offenders is currently collected by police or through the Department of Justice when the person enters the court system. The requirement for the recording of this information and preparation of an annual report providing statistics would require changes in data systems and licensing processes. It would require more public servants to collect the information. Do we want public servants collecting and processing data? If we had more resources, do we want to put those resources into frontline policing?
Impounding or forfeiting vehicles for repeat drink-driving offences will further exacerbate the social disadvantage for Indigenous people residing in regional and remote areas. In addition, Territory police have indicated there would be logistical issues in seizing and storing vehicles in remote areas. There will, potentially, be significant cost to police and government, and it is possible the value of many impounded vehicles will mean their owners will fail to collect them.
This means police will require impoundment yards across the Territory. Where will they be built? How will they be managed? Towing contractors in the bush are not common; how are police going to get cars to the yards? How does the opposition propose these construction projects be funded? Which services would need to be cut? There is a great need to provide detail. In remote areas police may be the sole provider of storage for vehicles, and their ability to recoup costs on disposal will be very limited.
The opposition’s proposed amendments do not attempt to close the gap for people from remote and Indigenous communities. The proposal would have very little benefit on current sentencing outcomes, and lead to unintended consequences impacting on family or community members related to the offender.
Road safety is a priority of this government and is high on the national agenda, and any evidence-based initiative to reduce the impacts of drink-driving is welcome. However, the effectiveness of this legislation is difficult to determine, as there is little in the way of research and data provided to support the proposal.
I listened, with interest, to the member for Braitling during his second reading speech - and what a performance it was. For the record, the bill before us is not the result of a negotiated agreement between the member for Braitling and me, or my staff. There was no agreement whatsoever. The member for Braitling knows our discussions in Alice Springs last year in relation to his previous Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38), were intended to give the recently introduced alcohol ignition locks a chance to work before ripping cars away from families. It was also pointed out to the member, at the time, his amendment bill contained a major error in regard to his intent that vehicle forfeiture would result only after three offences within five years. This bill before us is not the result of some supposed agreement, and it does not give the alcohol ignition locks a chance to work before vehicle impoundment or forfeiture occurs.
This government is interested in evidence-based policy. Where is the evidence in this policy? Where is the data to show this proposal will reduce the Territory’s road toll? The member’s second reading speech was typical of what we have come to expect: plenty of assumptions, plenty of allegations with no details, no costings, and extremely little evidence, justification or common sense.
I refer to the Parliamentary Record where, in April, in his closing remarks, the member said:
- Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will go a long way to encouraging people to slow down on our roads, which is the ultimate aim but, more importantly, not drink and drive.
In that second reading speech the member for Braitling was so intent on ridiculing me as the Transport minister, and my speeding infringement, he lost the plot and failed to recognise the debate in the House, and consequently delivered a less than appropriate result for supporting his own legislation.
This bill has nothing to do with speed on our roads; this is about drink-drivers. The adjournment speech on the same evening proves this. I have heard of some backpedalling before, but during that adjournment, recorded on the Parliamentary Record, I believe the member for Braitling was doing double time.
The current drink-driving penalties allow for substantial fines, demerit points, alcohol ignition locks, imprisonment, and loss of licence. Road safety experts tell us these proposed amendments would have little or no impact on drink-driving, and incur a very high cost to administer.
I will highlight changes since 2006 under the Labor government. Our current penalties are tough and allow substantial fines, alcohol ignition locks, loss of licence, and imprisonment. We have doubled the fines for below 0.08% offences; introduced immediate licence suspension of three months for second offence in three years; immediate licence suspension of six months for subsequent offences in three years; introduced alcohol ignition lock sentencing provisions; increased enforcement and improved detection of drink-driving, such as increasing the time limit on taking breath tests and blood samples; and improved road safety education.
Alcohol ignition locks are new technology to the Territory, and are the point of difference between the Territory government’s policy and the opposition. The issue is changing driver behaviour. The government is listening to the experts in road safety. In the interests of Territorians’ lives, we have, and will continue to introduce world’s best practice. We will continue our efforts in delivering safer roads for Territorians. Taking away the car which may be the only way family members have of getting themselves around could have significant health and social impacts. Research conducted by Curtin University suggests up to 90% of repeat offenders have an underlying serious alcohol problem, and many will be alcohol dependant. Available research shows this bill will not work. It will not reduce our road toll, and the member for Braitling has been briefed on this issue by leading experts in the field.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I point out that, under our current penalty regime, if a person exceeds 0.05% more than once we take them off the road. This amendment does nothing. If a person blows over 0.08%, they are off the road immediately. Nothing happens under this amendment. If a person repeatedly drinks and drives, fines increase, the periods of licence cancellation increases, and alcohol ignition lock sentences or imprisonment periods are imposed. This bill will not work, and the government does not support the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard a very interesting argument from the minister, and it concerns me he has the habit of reading out responses written by departmental officials - staffers upstairs - without thinking about them, because I would not have brought those arguments to this House. Whilst I appreciate the government would not support this legislation, I could think of more cogent arguments than the minister has provided. I ask him to turn a critical eye upon things prepared for him before he comes into this House.
I am somewhat perplexed. On consideration of the argument, the government is, on one hand, concerned about the social impacts of this bill, and on the other talks about how tough it is in imposing its will upon the people of the Northern Territory who drink and drive. We have the argument there is a dreadful social impact by taking someone’s car away and their mode of transport, and on the other hand, my goodness, we will fine them to the tune of thousands of dollars. I am wondering what the social impact is of fining a family on a low income thousands of dollars as opposed to taking their car away? If the minister is serious about running the argument he is concerned about the social impact of the legislative instrument by way of penalty, then he should be arguing, if he wants to remain consistent with the philosophy behind it, about the social impact of taking a driver’s licence away. He should be concerned about the impact of fining a drink-driver thousands of dollars, because all those things have impacts on families.
He says the philosophy of government is to address driver behaviour. I could not think of a greater way of addressing a driver’s behaviour than taking their car away. This is not, in the words of the member for Johnston, ‘rocket science’; this is straightforward stuff. It does not bear rational reconciliation with those two positions. He is saying: ‘We know best. We have all the tools, alcohol ignition locks and all the other devices, to impose our will as a state upon those drink-drivers but we are not going to impose our will, as a state, on those drink-drivers through this mechanism’.
The argument is not consistent. I am happy to be tough on drink-drivers; it is a good idea. This bill proposes we be tough on drink-drivers. However, you cannot run the social equity argument parallel to that argument. You either care about the social equity component or you care about the road safety component. That is where you have to come from in relation to this.
I am not particularly comfortable with the social equity argument because I have never seen social equity as an issue when a tonne of metal runs over a person. A tonne of metal does not care whether you are rich or poor. A tonne of metal does the damage a tonne of metal does when controlled by a drink-driver and, as the target of this bill is concerned, repeat drink-drivers.
The second component of the minister’s argument is cost. You cannot do this sort of thing, and there are budgetary impacts you need to consider. Why does he talk about alcohol ignition locks or the interlock systems? That particular government policy was an off-budget spend. It was not budgeted for in the financial year it was introduced. The Cabinet submission put a value of $400 000 to $450 000 to set up the process to run the ignition lock devices. As far as I am aware one has been issued. The policy of off-budget spend, something the minister is critical of the member for Braitling for, has produced one interlock device. I could stand corrected because that information is about two or three months old. I would like to hear from the minister: how many interlock devices have been fitted as a result of this policy, outside the normal budget cycle, and how much did it cost? Was it less or more than the Cabinet submission suggested?
Introducing policy on the run, something the minister accuses the member for Braitling of, is well-established by this government. They did it with the interlock devices. They did it with the justification it was necessary to introduce a policy which would have an immediate effect. Okay, stick with that argument, take that position, but do not use the argument to run down the policy of the member for Braitling. It shows a level of inconsistency which reduces this argument to a mere political squabble whilst we talk about the lives of Territorians.
The other issue is the process; it would require change in process for public servants. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! They are the government. They are the people elected to serve the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, and they should be running the Northern Territory. If the only excuse they can provide to resist legislative instruments like this is it might be a little difficult for public servants to re-jig the way they do things, the tail is wagging the dog and that is not a rational approach. Furthermore, if there is a budget impact, what prevents the minister from saying to member for Braitling: ‘We cannot do it this financial year. Can you wait until next financial year and we can work it into our costings? That way we can get processes in place’. At the heart of this issue is whether or not this is a good idea. It is a good idea.
The minister says there is research to say it is not a good idea. Clearly, some provinces in Canada do it. The United States, New Zealand, and several other places think it is a good idea. You say there is no evidence to support it. Well, they thought there was some evidence to support it.
Could you produce the evidence you claim shows this system does not work? If it does not work in those jurisdictions, demonstrate it. Do not make the assertion in the same way you accused the member for Braitling of making the assertion. If the argument is the member for Braitling cannot introduce this because he has no evidence, the minister should produce evidence to demonstrate the strength of his argument because the evidence must be there to support his assertion. There are numerous jurisdictions in other parts of the world which have a system like this.
Furthermore, the question of what the police would do with the cars is an absolute furphy. The system is already there if you are a grog runner. Every police station in the bush has a compound with seized cars in it. At Papunya police station right now there would be four or five cars parked out the back. In the exhibit room of that police station will be perhaps a dozens casks of that lady in the boat - Coolabah wine – that type of thing. The police already do that. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, an aeroplane was once seized by police in Port Keats; it was taking grog into Port Keats. The police knew this was happening and they seized an aeroplane under the Liquor Act. To the question of police not being in a position to do it, and what infrastructure would have to be built, the answer is: none, unless the minister has said to the police: ‘Can you find us a way to fight this?’, and the police say: ‘All right, we may have to build an extra compound at every police station’, which is nonsense.
That means we would need to double the number of compounds we already have, which is one for every bush police station, which would be expensive. Yes, you can find the answer that way, however, those compounds are large enough to accommodate cars seized for drink-driving offences, other exhibits, miscellaneous property reports which occasionally apply themselves to vehicles, grog runners’ cars, and cars which are occasionally locked in police compounds because the police officer is kind enough to look after someone’s car when they are in the community for a couple of days for another reason.
There are a number of reasons cars end up in police compounds, and to assert police compounds do not exist is an absolute furphy and demonstrates this government is not even going to take the time to seriously challenge the legislative instrument before this House.
I suspect this probably did not make it to the department. This was probably several phone calls to the police department: ‘Mate, if you have to build more compounds, how much would it cost?’ The officer says: ‘Oh, bucket loads’. ‘Okay, that will do.’ Then a staffer in the department types the response and they think they have it covered. The ignorance of the person writing the minister’s reply is demonstrable because they assume these compounds do not exist.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister talks about being a serious legislator; the minister should reflect on being a serious legislator. This is good legislation. Not a single relevant, forceful, or useful argument has been produced by the minister to defeat this legislation. It could be another weapon in the arsenal the minister already has to fight drink-driving, and he should welcome it.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a long few weeks in parliament. We are two-thirds of the way into the second week of sittings and it seems we are finally starting to get some wins; starting to hit some straps. We are starting to come home with good politics for the Country Liberals.
I am not surprised the government did not support this legislation. They knock me back on transport reform all the time despite the fact, since their road reforms in 2006–07, we have seen the road toll climb and drunks, and their passengers, dying. I do not expect Labor to take any action to toughen things up. The member for Port Darwin spoke about the alcohol interlock system and how that is working. He spoke about one AIL two months ago; they might be up to two now, member for Port Darwin. They are really hitting their straps; they are coming home with a wet sail.
Why will government not take serious action? Drink-driving has puzzled me for some time because we know our gaols are full of drink-drivers. We know there is a drinking problem. We know people are picked up for DUI, put into gaol. Our gaols are full, and government cannot get law and order sorted. They have to release the prisoners to incarcerate new ones. The charade was given up last week when we were debating legislation around the transport of dangerous goods. The Attorney-General said: ‘We have a policy in this government. We have a policy. We have a middle-of-the-road policy, not too shoddy like those other lazy Labor jurisdictions. Not too good, not excellent; we have a middle-of-the-road policy’.
That is why they will not accept this outstanding reform. They have a middle-of-the-road policy which just goes along. They do not want to address the issue; they do not want to get drunks off the road, or take cars from people who are drunk. You have to recognise, as the minister said - and I will paraphrase: ‘Member for Braitling, research shows these people are alcohol abusers; they have a chronic alcohol problem’. Let us take their cars off them! What about the people who are hit or killed? I am sure his instructions from Cabinet are: take the middle of the road; do not go too far left or right.
The Attorney-General said her government has a middle-of-the-road policy - nothing outstanding - middle of the road. If only the government had an approach similar to the new Police Commissioner. Leader of Government Business, I apologise, I do not have the date. However, I know this was on ABC with Mel James on the 9 am news time slot. I quote:
- Talkback with the Police Commissioner, John McRoberts. I know that before parliament this week there are going to be a few pieces of legislation that are going to increase the penalties for drink-drivers. Confiscating the cars of drink-drivers who have been caught, I think is three times the line of a five-year period with one of those readings classified as high range.
This is before our amendment and the second reading speech. Melinda James said:
- Commissioner, do you think that is a good idea?
Commissioner McRoberts: Well, penalties are designed to try and encourage people not to break the law. I think what government is recognising here is that there is a significant number of people who choose to drink and drive in the Northern Territory.
James says: ‘Repeatedly?’
- Commissioner McRoberts said: ‘Repeatedly, yes. The signs tell us that your chances of having a crash if you have been drinking and driving is significantly higher than had you not been drinking, and penalties are designed to do two things, one is that they should be a specific deterrent, and that is that those who chose to think about drinking and driving are deterred from doing so because of the consequences and, indeed, from a community’s perspective, they are designed to be a general deterrent. Hopefully, people don’t do things that they shouldn’t do because they fear the consequence and that is why penalties are increased just like the cost of living.
It is good to see the Police Commissioner is on board with our thinking. It is a pity the government has a middle-of-the-road policy and cannot see the wisdom the Police Commissioner is portraying and the Country Liberals are pursuing.
We have heard the minister say it is not fair if people lose their car, especially if they are in a remote area. The middle-of-the-road policy by the Labor government is if you live in a remote area it is all right to drink and drive; we will not place harsh penalties on you. We will look after the urban people; they will have tough penalties. How dare you think about taking a car from someone in the bush for drink-driving - how dare you.
I have to ask where the missing soldier is. Where is the missing commie? Where is the 13th member of the Labor government? Where is the member for Nelson? The original bill, the three strikes policy, was if you were caught three times - where one of those times in a five-period was a high range - you would have your car confiscated. The member for Nelson said that was too harsh. I met with the minister, his advisors, my advisors, and we all talked, held hands and nearly sang Kumbaya, and the member for Nelson said: ‘No, no’. The alternate Labor member, the member for Nelson, wants a new point system. He said it is too harsh straight up. We need a policy where you can have a little take your car for 48 hours, a little alcohol ignition lock, and a little forfeiture.
It all sounded too hard. We worked out a model with Parliamentary Counsel and decided to forget the original amendment; we would have a new model reflective of what the member for Nelson wants, yet the member for Nelson is not here in this debate. This was designed around what he wanted – not even here. I wish we had the …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I remind you that reference to the absence of members is contravening standing orders. I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I did not make reference to anyone not being here. Not here in the debate. I did not say he was not in the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it was very plain to me that that is what you were saying. I ask you to withdraw, please. Thank you.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The member for Nelson is not even in this debate - has not even spoken.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that is much clearer. If you wish to say he has not spoken in the debate ...
Mr GILES: Has not spoken. For those who do not understand, we will make it clear: the member for Nelson, the 13th member of the Labor government, who wanted these reforms, has not spoken to this proposal which has been put forward, the Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 97).
When we see people throughout the Territory drinking and driving, at low, medium or high range, repeat offenders, people having accidents, people dying in motor vehicle accidents as a direct result of drink-driving, I say government was soft.
You cannot regulate to stop all accidents, but you have to try. It is part of our job as regulators. That is why we are in this House of debate, and we come forward with a tough penalty which says you will lose your car for 48 hours for drink-driving. You are caught for high range, first time – 48 hours. That is a good rule, a fine rule. You are caught for a third offence at different rates on the penalty system, designed by the 13th member of the Labor government, the member for Nelson, you forfeit your car. I do not care if it is Ferrari or a Mini. You do not drink and drive on Territory roads and put the lives of men, women and children at risk because you have been irresponsible. The government is clearly being irresponsible by not taking further initiatives.
We see the road safety reforms in 2007, the road toll goes up to 57, up to 75, and we are seeing it rise every year. Something needs to be done. We are a disgrace. When you compare road tolls from other jurisdictions we are disgraceful.
We talk about gaol, we talk about prisoners and corrections; and the Minister for Transport is also the minister for Corrections. Surely you have to undertake some action to stop people going to gaol? There are not enough education programs around drink-driving; insufficient penalties in place to stop people from drink-driving. People just drink and drive.
The Chief Minister spoke about the new initiative to curb alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence put out by the Northern Territory News, which is a fantastic initiative; I might sign up to that myself. Putting reforms in place around traffic offences in relation to domestic violence is one piece of the pie which helps reduce the consumption of alcohol in the Northern Territory which leads to other things, whether it be domestic violence, whether it be assault or whether it be traffic accidents that result in death. You have to have a comprehensive approach.
If people know they are putting at risk the ownership of their SS Commodore or their FPV Falcon they might think twice about drinking and driving. It will have a positive effect, and it does not matter if it affects 10 000 people or 100 people. Any reduction in drink-driving or alcohol consumption is positive. That is why I do not bag out the AIL. There may only be one person, but that one person has been affected. It is a big cost for one person - or whatever the number is now – however, it is a positive outcome we have to continue with.
I am a big supporter of evidence-based policy. I could not agree more. Reforms have to be based on evidence. However, there are times when there are not simple matches in jurisdictions, or geography, or population base, or some statistical data where you can get an accurate reflection of evidence for such reforms. Sometimes you have to take a risk and produce the evidence yourself to make a success, and if you fail you scrap it. That is what happens. We continue to change legislation because we are in changing times. There is an opportunity to take risks in going further and being tough.
As part of Seniors Month, I held a forum in Alice Springs on Monday. Seniors were asking me about antisocial behaviour and crime. I tried to take a non-political approach and said words to the effect of: you have to send a strong message to the community that you are going to be tough and bring penalties. It is not like Territory elections-style tough - who is the toughest on law and order and things like that. It is about the impression of tough. You know there is someone with that big stick and you might lose your car.
It pains me to think we do not have any ramifications. The biggest ramification for me in getting caught drink-driving at 0.06, 0.07 is the Minister for Transport will ridicule me in parliament as I ridiculed him for his speeding ticket. That is the biggest penalty for me, and I say that in the sense of the assumption of the biggest penalty.
Of course, it is not good to drink and drive; you could hurt someone. My fear is it would be bad for me in my job. There are people out there who do not have that fear. If they get picked up drink-driving, it does not bother them. It pains me the people in my electorate who drink and drive every day - I give them a boot. Some of them are associates or friends. You are trying to convince people in your circle not to drink and drive - sometimes you struggle with that. A loud message that we are tough would be a good reform. I am afraid we are not going to be tough on drink-driving and road safety reform in the Northern Territory until after August 2012, when the Country Liberals hopefully take over. That is when we will see real reforms on our roads.
People listening to this broadcast need to think about how government looks at forfeiture of vehicles. In the Northern Territory, Labor says it is okay to seize your car if you have been peddling grog, if you have caught too many fish; however, it is not okay to seize your car if you have been drink-driving. I find that very hard to believe. You can do a burnout or catch too many fish and lose your car, however, heaven forbid, that you drink and drive.
It is amazing; lose your boat for too many fish, lose your car for too much grog, however, a $100 or $200 fine if you drink and drive. Where are the penalties? This is a social morality position the government takes saying it is going to be hard for people. We have clauses for hardship, the magistrate is allowed to provide some leeway in how he assesses it, and we recognise there could be hardship, and that is part of the penalty process. You have to be at pains - stop drinking and driving.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not continue with this. I accept the judge’s decision; the minister will not support it. I am disappointed all this work has been done to reflect what the 13th member of the Labor Party, the member for Nelson, wanted, and he has not supported it. I find that highly unprofessional. We will put it to the vote. Maybe he will support this legislation.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 11
Ms Carney Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTERTIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Continued from 28 April 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, my contribution will be brief. I will give it the contempt this legislation deserves. This is a slight variation on the previous bill of the member for Katherine, and was rejected in February last year. I do not propose to repeat what has previously been said other than reiterate the following.
The 2008 bill sought to amend the Aboriginal Land Act to allow a new section providing for the granting of a general exemption for the need to have a permit to enter intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land. The new bill seeks the same outcome. The only change is the amendment to the penalty provision from $1000 to 10 units for anyone who contravenes the condition of the general exemption.
Section 5(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act already provides a land council or traditional owners can waive the requirement for a permit to enter Aboriginal land, which includes waters over that land. This bill will not provide any benefit to current discussions with the land councils, nor the current Tiwi Island situation. To the contrary, it would most likely result in an unnecessary distraction to the current sensitive negotiations with the land councils.
The government continues to be in close discussions with the land councils to reach a practical, negotiated outcome, and with the Commonwealth to ensure we receive financial support for the government’s proposals to the land councils.
I challenge the member for Katherine, and any of his colleagues who would stand in support of this disgraceful act, to demonstrate this bill has the support of the land councils. Member for Katherine, where are the letters of support from stakeholders? Where are the letters of support from the Amateur Fishermen’s Association? Where are the letters of support from the land councils?
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government will not support this bill and we condemn the member for Katherine for yet again bringing in this scurrilous bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Lordy, lordy, lordy, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not funny how the Attorney-General asks for letters from the land councils and amateur fishermen? Where are the letters, Attorney-General, from amateur fishermen rejecting this bill? Where are the letters from the land councils rejecting this bill? If one assumes the bill is not supported by those organisations, surely you would provide this House with evidence. No, the Attorney-General demonstrated she held this bill in contempt. That means she did not do any work. She made no effort to constructively deconstruct this bill, and, more to the point, it did not get past her office. Why? Because the Attorney-General is a legal tyrant.
This bill does nothing more than add to the capacity, in a small way, of the land councils as representatives of the landowners, to have a greater power of choice as to how they exert their title rights. It does nothing to erode those title rights. If the minister believes she knows better than the land councils not to take this matter to them at all, simply to pour her snide derision all over this bill and march away from the argument in a way which shows the contempt she overtly expressed in this House, one can understand the intent of the Attorney-General. She knows best; she knows better than everyone else.
We have seen this expressed in the way the government has dealt with the intertidal issue since the declaration in the Blue Mud Bay case by the Federal Court, and ultimately the High Court of this country. We have seen the contempt she has brought to this arrangement exercised up until that point, because the Federal Court made a determination in relation to native title case.
It is interesting to read these cases - and I will digress into the cases themselves - because they lie at the heart of this bill. The original determination by the Federal Court contained an almost oblique reference to an old law of trespass in relation to what ultimately turned out to be the problem that became the Blue Mud Bay case. If you read the full court’s decision in the Blue Mud Bay case, the issue which affects the intertidal zones has nothing to do with native title, so the Blue Mud Bay case is a misnomer.
There is a general acceptance in the law of trespass - and this was the question put before the Federal Court - where you own lands with water above that land it is not a trespass to take fish from the water that moves across that land. However, that is a very weak exemption indeed, and the question that was put before the Full Bench of the Federal Court was: does the operation and nature of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act diminish that exemption from the law of trespass? The Full Bench of the Federal Court turned their mind to this question, and looked at the Woodward Royal Commission as well as the second reading speeches made in 1976 or 1975, in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as to the intent of the legislature.
Looking at the Woodward Royal Commission, the exclusion zone around Aboriginal land, from memory, extended two nautical miles into the sea - I could be corrected, but some distance into the sea. It was finally determined the extent of the title, when granted under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, would extend to the low water mark. It was clear to the Federal Court the intent of Justice Woodward was to exert an exclusive proprietorial right out into the sea. Because Woodward was referred to as such a strong source in relation to the drafting of the Land Rights legislation, the determination was made by the Federal Court that reliance on Justice Woodward’s world view, emanating from the Woodward Royal Commission, had the effect of defeating the exemption to the general law of trespass, i.e. that the second reading speeches, and the Woodward Royal Commission, suggested it was the intent of the legislature to defeat the intent of the exemption to the law of trespass.
How did the government respond to this? They responded by saying: ‘We know best, and are going to take a full page in the Northern Territory News with a dog whistle advertisement’ - something we are always accused of on this side of the House. The advertisement will say: “We are fighting for the rights of fishermen, we are fighting for the rights of you poor people against those dreadful Aboriginal people, who are exerting this proprietorial right over your fishing grounds’ What a sickening dog whistle it was, however is it all right because the government knew best.
They have, because of their lack of insight, failed miserably. If any minister in the government had read the full bench decision of the Federal Court in relation to Blue Mud Bay, they could not have been diverted from the realisation the argument by the full bench was so compelling to defeat the intertidal issue they should not have bothered to take it to the High Court. Politics drove it to the High Court. The High Court was not convinced by the government’s assertions; it was utterly convinced by the strength of the argument expressed by the full bench of the Federal Court in relation to the intertidal zones. In other words, the exclusive right to the waters moving over the intertidal zone near the coastline of 80% of the Northern Territory.
Has the arrogance subsided: no, it has not, because this proposed legislative instrument would enable a class of people to be given a permit right to go into those intertidal zones. It would do nothing more than increase the capacity of the landowners to exert their exclusive title rights with greater discretion, which is the purpose of this.
Will it interfere with the negotiation for the land council? – nonsense, it takes nothing away from the land councils. The government’s refusal to accept this amendment takes discretion away from the land councils, and if there was any issue which offends me more about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, I do not know what it is. The greatest problem I have with the Land Rights Act is the incapacity - and by consequence in the Aboriginal Land Act - for the people who have the supposed proprietorial right, not to be allowed to exercise those rights in the discretions available to them. Aboriginal people have land rights? No, they do not. They have something imposed upon them from legislatures, both federal and state, or Territory in this case.
The Aboriginal Land Act reflects that imposition. I support this bill for the simple reason it gives greater proprietorial rights to the traditional owners of Aboriginal lands under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, not lesser rights, which is what the Attorney-General seeks to continue to impose through her arrogance.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, at one point in his second reading speech of 24 February 2010, the member for Katherine purported to characterise his amendment as one which would: be a progressive way of furthering the empowerment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That motivation is suspect coming from a party whose leader, in the immediate aftermath of the Blue Mud Bay decision - because we know the member for Port Darwin likes rewriting history - sought maximum publicity for his announcement he had written to the Prime Minister asking the Commonwealth to legislate to override the High Court and impose his political base - referred to as a public right to fish - on the coastal traditional owners of the Northern Territory.
My suspicions as to motive for the amendment are strengthened by the questionable nature of the claim it achieves anything for Aboriginal land councils and traditional owner groups not already available to them under the existing act. The real driver for this legislation is what the member for Katherine stated at the beginning of his speech. I will not repeat it; the Attorney-General clearly articulated it.
The member for Katherine needs to come clean and say the interests of non-Indigenous people motivated him as author of this bill, and should dispense with any pretence of concern for Aboriginal people.
The member for Katherine has asserted, in his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill (Serial 19), and I quote:
- At the present time, except where provided for by the provisions of sections 9 and 19 of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory relating to exceptional circumstances, anyone other than an Aboriginal who is entitled by Aboriginal tradition must obtain a permit in order to enter Aboriginal land or closed seas.
Let us start with section 5(8), which reads:
- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4, the Aboriginal Land Council for the area in which an area of Aboriginal land is situated or the traditional Aboriginal owners of an area of Aboriginal land may, by notice published in a newspaper or broadcast over a radio station, waive the requirement for a permit to enter the Aboriginal land or use a road bordered by that Aboriginal land specified by the Land Council or the traditional Aboriginal owners in the notice for the period or periods specified in that notice and the requirements of section 4 shall not apply over that area, or in respect of that road, for that period or those periods.
To put that in context, section 4 imposes the requirement to have a permit to go onto Aboriginal land. Section 5(8) is the mechanism my constituents at Gunbalanya utilise each year when they invite members of the public to come to their community to share and enjoy their annual open day. Nothing in section 5(8) prevents it from being utilised in respect of a particular stretch of intertidal zone, and there is no limit placed on the length of the period or periods for which the permit waiver may operate. For example, a traditional owner group may wish to instruct its land council to open up a particular creek or inlet to the public on a trial basis for a year. That can happen now.
The second mechanism is the more permanent arrangement provided for under section 11. Once again I will read it out in full.
- (1) The Administrator may, on the recommendation of a Land Council, declare by notice in the Gazette, an area of Aboriginal land or a road to be an open area or open road, as the case may be.
- (2) Where a declaration is made under subsection (1), a person may enter and remain on the area of Aboriginal land, or use the road, described in the notice without obtaining a permit.
A land council can only make the recommendations contemplated in section 11(1) with the consent and endorsement of the relevant traditional owner group or groups. It is their mouthpiece or agent in that regard. If it was evident Aboriginal people wanted to open up their land for the purpose of section 11, it would clearly be expected the Administrator would formalise that desire.
As we know, a Coalition government in Canberra decided it knew best and, exercising remote control power as if self-government had never happened, legislated all common areas on community land would be open to the public without the need for any permit. In my electorate, community land for the purposes of Commonwealth legislation includes Maningrida, Milikapiti, Minjilang, Nguiu, Pirlangimpi and Warrawi.
A common area means an area generally used by members of the community concerned - and here is where it gets really weird. People in any of my coastal communities generally use the intertidal zone which forms its coastal boundaries. I understand it boasts a compulsory five-year lease under the intervention legislation and, section 19A, whole of township lease at Nguiu, goes to the low water mark. Thanks to the former Coalition government, fishermen from anywhere in Australia can fish the intertidal zone directly adjacent to any of those communities to his or her heart’s content, but not the continuing coastline on either side of that patch.
On what basis is that supposed to be a special measure for the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act? I know the lure - to use my colleague, the member for Casuarina’s terminology for recreational fishermen - is the creeks and inlets rather than the busier beach areas next to Aboriginal communities. The common areas on community land serve to demonstrate the inappropriateness of imposing a one-size-fits-all fix. The great majority of my constituents would strongly object to having strangers boating into their communities without notice or invitation; however would be happy to welcome visitors and individuals through a proper process.
My coastal constituents, especially my Tiwi constituents, have a deep and jealous affection for those creeks and inlets. They value the richness and diversity of the fish and other marine life which can be found there, and understand exploiting that resource is a central aspect of their Indigenous lifestyle, and an economic development opportunity when made available to outsiders.
A permit system enables both things to be addressed. A general exemption arrangement, as outlined by the member for Katherine, certainly does not. The member for Katherine may argue his general exemption proposal comes with the potential for a traditional owner group to decline to let the public at large in, and allow in a notional class defined in what he is calling an instrument of exemption. This is just a smoke screen. What is contemplated is an open invitation to all recreational fishermen, for all intents and purposes an invitation to the general public, similar to the invitation for people to attend the Gunbalanya Open Day.
The member for Katherine well knows Aboriginal people are not going to discriminate in the way he has facetiously suggested in the example he chose when he said: ‘It might be that traditional owners may wish to open up their intertidal zone to people wearing blue shirts or white sandshoes’. On the other hand, if what is really contemplated, if what has arisen from the think tank sessions between the CLP and the Tiwi Land Council’s business genius secretary, assisted perhaps by its media advisor, is the land council will give special recreational fishing concessions to company X or company Y, and the clients of those companies will constitute the special exempted class, then the whole exercise is completely unnecessary.
Section 15(4) of the Aboriginal Land Act allows a land council, or a traditional owner group, to delegate all or part of the authority conferred under the act to issue permits. Community councils have been doing this in the Territory for decades. Company X or company Y can issue permits in that capacity to their clients if that is what the land council or traditional owner group wants, and that is a superior outcome to the litigation magnet model proposed by the member for Katherine.
The member for Katherine’s model allows for conditions being included in an instrument of exemption, and for prosecution action to be taken in the event of a breach of such conditions. There is some merit in the existing section 15(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act being amended by adding an option of Gazette notice and expressly confirming the ability to make such waiver conditional on compliance with conditions. It is my understanding failure to comply with such conditions would render the person concerned liable to prosecution under section 4, so there would not be a need for an additional prosecution provision as proposed in the bill.
Whether a departure from the requirement to have a permit is implemented under existing section 15, or under a scheme along the lines proposed in this bill, enforcement and prosecution is rendered more difficult by predictable claims of mistaken beliefs on the part of a visitor, and reliance on the underlying law of trespass - which the member for Port Darwin suggested - by the person whose authority derives from the freehold ownership of the land.
The bottom line is with the permit system there is no need to resort to complex and troubled laws of trespass. In fact, that was the reason the permit system was adopted initially. If the general exemption model, as outlined by the member for Katherine, is allowed to proceed, disputes will inevitably arise as to whether a person who believes themself to fall within the class, satisfies the qualifying criteria or characteristics of that class, and as to the scope of applicable conditions, whereas proof of a section 4 offence under the Aboriginal Land Act consists principally of proof that the defendant did not have a permit. Persons charged with a contravention of the proposed exemption regime would certainly get off every time by arguing mistakes of fact arising from definitional uncertainty.
This bill, as the Attorney-General said, is a complete distraction from what should be the main focus of the debate, namely the great opportunity the Blue Mud Bay decision has delivered. In its recognition, not just of traditional owner access and control rights - the member for Port Darwin should read the Blue Mud Bay decision - and the Tiwi Land Council, as I have pointed out time and time again. Yes, it recognised traditional owner access and control rights, however, it also recognised the continuing regulatory powers of the Northern Territory government. I am referring to the opportunity we, as a government, have to meld and unify government fisheries and environmental regulations with land councils and traditional owners to look at access supervisions into, for the first time in Northern Territory government history, a seamless administrative regime.
The member for Katherine has visited and had discussions with the Tiwi Land Council, and no discussion with the Northern Land Council, or Anindilyakwa. If the Tiwi Land Council wants to walk away from the highly desirable goal of achieving a better outcome for Tiwi people, that is their right. It is the right of all land councils, however it is also foolish.
The Tiwi Land Council should get back to the table, and there is dialogue with the land council. I am hoping the Tiwi Land Council can get back to the table with the Northern Territory government to resolve this issue for the better outcome of Tiwi people, so they get full economic benefits of their waters in a proper way, and they work together with the Northern Territory government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Katherine’s bill is a distraction. It is plain, foolish politics similar to Senator Scullion launching the Indigenous Affairs policy recently saying they will scrap the permit system and revert to their old ways. Aboriginal people are not stupid; they can see this CLP has not changed. They might have rebadged to call themselves Country Liberal however, as the Chief Minister said today, they are still the same old CLP.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for her contribution to the debate, which was extremely well researched. She has obviously put a great deal of effort into it, which is far more than I can say for the Attorney-General’s contribution. I feel battered and bruised, as if I have been hit by a sponge from the other side. It is terrible.
I said in my closing debate on the bill presented prior to this one, I was disappointed but not surprised the government would not support this bill. I reiterate that my disappointment stems from different reasons. When the Treasurer spoke last time in this debate, on 24 February 2010, she said:
- In addition, and most importantly, the timing of this bill is poor given the fact this issue of access lies at the very heart of negotiations currently in progress. To pass this bill while negotiations are progressing, would be insensitive, impolite and would damage the progress of these important negotiations.
That is not everything she said during the course of the debate. Things have changed since then and the negotiations she was referring to were between the government, landholders, traditional owners and other stakeholders with respect to access over Blue Mud Bay. We have seen what a mash this government has made with those negotiations. We had a promise from the Chief Minister in 2008, prior to the election, he would negotiate permits. He has been unable to do so with any of the land councils. One land council walked away because they were not getting any satisfaction from the government. We are two years down the track and still ‘negotiating’ with the other two land councils.
The member for Arafura quoted sections of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory. Much of what the member for Arafura said was right, however what surprises me is the fact neither the Attorney-General nor the member for Arafura really get it. They do not understand this bill. I challenge the member for Arafura to repeat her intimation there was a deal between the CLP and the Tiwi Land Council which gave rise to the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Act which have been proposed. I stand corrected if that is not what I heard, member for Arafura; it sounded like it.
I will go back to the act. The member for Arafura spoke about several sections which provide for exemptions or waivers. She quoted section 5(8), which I will repeat so I can put all this in context:
- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4, the Aboriginal Land Council for the area in which an area of Aboriginal land is situated or the traditional Aboriginal owners of an area of Aboriginal land may, by notice published in a newspaper or broadcast over a radio station, waive the requirement for a permit to enter the Aboriginal land or use a road bordered by that Aboriginal land specified by the Land Council or the traditional Aboriginal owners in the notice for the period or periods specified in that notice and the requirements for section 4 shall not apply over that area, or in respect of that road, for that period or those periods.
That section tells me Aboriginal land councils or traditional owners can provide a waiver for a period of time. That is what it relates to; a waiver for everyone. Everyone who wishes to visit that portion of Aboriginal land has a general waiver for a period of time. There is no provision for conditions which must be specified. A good example is probably Garma. By radio or newspaper, the land council can open up the area affected by the Garma Festival and everyone is welcome.
A member: Did not happen.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I know that. Last year was better than this year.
That section refers to everyone, and refers to a period of time. What it does not provide for are conditions.
The member for Arafura spoke about section 11, which was in relation to open areas. The Administrator may, on the recommendation of a land council, declare by notice in the Gazette, an area of Aboriginal land or road to be open area or open road as the case may be. Subsection (2), where a declaration is made under subsection (1), says a person may enter and remain on an area of Aboriginal land, or use a road described in the notice without obtaining a permit.
That is blanket open area. The Administrator can say he is going to open an area, obviously in consultation with the Aboriginal traditional owners or land council, and open that area for everyone.
The difference between provisions under section 11 and section 5(8) is the proposed amendment provides for an exemption for a class of person. Section 5(8) relates to a period of time for everyone. Section 11 relates to an open area for everyone with no other specifications.
The proposed amendment provides for a general exemption for a class of person. This, in effect, adds a power, or capacity, to landowners or land councils to give an exemption for a class of person. They can say subject to conditions, because that is part of the amendment, for example, fishermen can use Aboriginal land …
Ms Scrymgour: They must have blue shirts and white sandshoes.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Arafura. The land councils or traditional owners could give an exemption to people who wear blue shirts and white sandshoes. That is entirely up to them, and the additional capacity inferred by this amendment does not mandate anyone to do anything. It is simply an additional section within the Aboriginal Land Act which provides Aboriginal land councils and Aboriginal people an additional capacity to determine who comes onto their land and, by extension through Blue Mud Bay, those seas which are affected by that decision.
What the member for Arafura says is right. She quoted the sections verbatim, understands those sections, however she does not understand the implications of this amendment and how it differs ...
Ms Scrymgour: I understand very personally.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, you do not.
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You do not understand it. The member for Arafura has introduced politics into this. What I am attempting to do, is provide …
Ms Scrymgour: You are a joke - you are an absolute joke!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Arafura can carry on all she likes. This is an additional provision for Aboriginal people to determine who comes onto their land, and under what conditions. It is as simple as that. There is nothing in this proposed amendment which mandates anyone to do anything. If they wish to use this provision, they can.
I go back to the Treasurer saying to pass the bill while negotiations are progressing would be insensitive, impolite, and damage the progress of these important negotiations. That does not really ring true now. You have already seen the breakdown of negotiations between this government and the Tiwi Land Council. For goodness sake, someone needs to do something positive. We have not seen any negotiated outcomes between government and the land councils. If this legislation were passed tonight and at some time in the future changes needed to be made because of the outcome of negotiations between the government and land councils, we can change that. In the interim, this would give Aboriginal people and land councils the capacity to do something else. They could open up parts of their country to a particular class of person.
I cannot see any problems with this. I have said enough times tonight this legislation has nothing to do with politics; it is about empowering Aboriginal people. I believe it is a positive and good step forward. I see no problems with it.
Last time the Attorney-General spoke on this she suggested the scope of the bill was inconsistent with the High Court decision. It would have been nice for her to elaborate further tonight, however, that was not to be the case.
This will not be passed tonight, however we may see something similar if and when this government can reach a resolution regarding negotiations with the land councils over Blue Mud Bay.
Motion negatived.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 112)
(Serial 112)
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Public Interest Disclosure Act to provide for a valid public interest disclosure to be made without reward or advantage to a journalist or a member of the Legislative Assembly in circumstances where the disclosure was previously made to the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, or to the Speaker and no action has been taken within a six month period, or inadequate or inappropriate action has been taken.
The bill further proposes that if a disclosure is made to a journalist, there must be reasonable belief held by the disclosure of damage or imminent risk to the environment to property or to an individual.
In his second reading speech, the Leader of the Opposition noted New South Wales was the only jurisdiction which currently has such legislative provisions, and the provision is rarely used. He argued the reason the New South Wales legislation is rarely used was the threat of public exposure compelled the government to deal with a disclosure in a timely, comprehensive and purposeful manner. While it could be argued the threat of media exposure after six months may ensure the commissioner’s office and the public bodies being investigated remain more proactive and answerable, for large, complex investigations the six month time frame for completion of investigations is inappropriate, and could jeopardise sensitive ongoing investigations.
Such time limits are also incompatible with a genuine emergency, for example, where there is serious specific and immediate danger to public health or safety. A principal object of the Public Interest Disclosure Act is to ensure the public interest information is properly investigated and any impropriety revealed by investigation is properly dealt with. Neither exposure may damage or destroy an investigation by making its existence widely known at a time when a carefully planned confidential investigation is under way.
Another principal object of the act is to enable the commissioner’s office to conduct a private investigation where possible, and to protect disclosers from reprisals. Often, disclosers are only comfortable speaking to the commissioner’s office on the basis their identity remains confidential. Publication of a disclosure through the media or an MLA may well cut across such understandings, and may place undue pressure and focus on disclosers and witnesses, particularly those embedded in the public body under scrutiny.
Furthermore, disclosure through the media can allow untested allegations to become public, and unjustly impugn those against whom allegations are made. There is also no requirement that such disclosure be justified, for example, the discloser has reasonable grounds for believing it to be substantially true, or it is, indeed, substantially true. Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there are procedural fairness safeguards to ensure that if adverse comment is going to be made, the individual or public body has the right to comment beforehand. The involvement of the media may impact negatively on procedural fairness, as only one side of the story may be publicised. This is particularly a risk in an environment such as the NT, which is dominated by one media newspaper outlet.
Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the Commissioner of Police must be given the opportunity to comment on any report before it is published in order to protect any person, or any ongoing police investigation, or genuinely in the public interest. An amendment which allows the publication of disclosures through the media or through an MLA circumvents and nullifies those protections.
Further, under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is a two-step reporting process which gives public bodies the initial opportunity to address the discloser’s concerns to the satisfaction of the commissioner’s office. It is only in cases where the response of the public body is unsatisfactory, for example, insufficient steps taken to give effect to a recommendation, that a second report will be referred to the minister for tabling. There is merit in allowing the commissioner’s office the discretion to decide, in the public interest, whether they can work with a relevant body to improve their practices, without the need for a public naming and shaming. Where it is in the public interest the commissioner can table a report through the relevant minister. Allowing an individual discloser to decide whether a matter should be publicly aired through the media or an MLA, removes the commissioner’s discretion.
A discloser’s decision to go public may also be motivated by personal, rather than public interest, reasons. Giving the discloser the discretion to decide when and what should be disclosed to the media, or an MLA, risks compromising the integrity of the public interest disclosure process and, in particular, current investigations into improper conduct by NT public bodies.
Even if it was decided an amendment such as this was justified, it would be better to wait before rushing into amendments. Before it entered caretaker mode, the Australian government announced it was intending to develop legislation which recognises limited circumstances in which direct disclosure could be made to the media. Noting the Public Interest Disclosure Act only came into force in July 2009, and noting the lack of legislative reform on this issue by the various states, it would be preferable for the NT to look to the introduction of any legislation by the Australian government before further considering such an amendment regarding disclosures to third parties, including the media.
The bill also provides for a disclosure relating to an MLA other than the Speaker. This is said to be an amendment about giving further options to whistle-blowers, particularly as a disclosure about the Speaker can be made to the commissioner, and internal disclosures, particularly, can be undermined.
The provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act regarding MLAs were based in the Victorian legislation, as per the NT Law Reform Committee recommendation. It was not intended to recreate an oversight body over MLAs, only to ensure people who made disclosures about MLAs were protected. Generally, members of parliament are not subject to obligations of investigation because of their independence, and are ultimately accountable to parliament and the electorate.
MLAs are not public servants except in the wider sense of serving the public. Speakers traditionally deal with complaints. They have independent responsibilities and must exercise their discretion in a neutral manner. A disclosure about an MLA should be left to the Speaker to decide if a disclosure comes within the legislation and how it should be dealt with.
In summary, there are appropriate government structures in place under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The solution to provide better delivery does not lie in legislative change as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, the government does not support this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, in closing debate, noting there is only two-and-a-half minutes left.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Two-and-a-half minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: Do you wish to finish your …
Mr MILLS: Yes I will finish, I will finish.
Madam SPEAKER: You can have an extension of time of 10 minutes.
Mr MILLS: No, I can do it in two-and-a-half minutes, thank you.
This is not the first time we have discussed this. I am sure the Attorney-General is aware I have taken on board some of the concerns raised in a previous incarnation. Rest assured, in the short time I have to speak all I need to say is I will be taking careful note of the objections you have outlined. I will incorporate those contributions which have been made, and continue to have another shot at it.
I need some further analysis of the reasons for lack of support from government, however, be prepared, I will be back. Nonetheless, there may be members in the Chamber who have not been convinced of the position put by the Attorney-General. I cannot presume upon the Chamber; I trust members have weighed this carefully and I urge them to support this amendment.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will complete the item of business before the Chair, and I put the question that the Assembly now adjourn.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about an annual event I attended on Saturday, 26 June 2010. The event I am talking about is India @ Mindil, well known to both locals and visitors to the Top End. I acknowledge the President of the Indian Cultural Society, Mr Rajeev Sharma, and the members of the Indian community who worked hard to put together a wonderful event which showcases the exciting and vibrant Indian culture, beautifully set under the stars at Mindil Beach.
India @ Mindil has been held since 1997, and has grown every year. It is one of the iconic multicultural events in the Northern Territory, and Australia’s largest Indian cultural festival. While at the event, I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs Geets Neelam Soni, who was the special guest dance artist/teacher visiting from Mumbai. Ms Soni is known for her starring role in the film Boogie Woogie. In addition to performing four dances at the event, Ms Soni also took the opportunity to train some of the local Indian dance performers, and they did a fantastic job. From the very youngest to the more mature, in the space of two weeks she had enthused them with such joy of performance, such rhythm, I was almost tempted to take lessons. Unfortunately, Ms Soni had to go back to India. Hopefully, she will back next year, and maybe I can go to some of the lessons. She did a great job and she was a great dancer herself, obviously, very well trained. She was a great asset to this year’s India @ Mindil.
It was fantastic to be in attendance at India @ Mindil and indulge in their culture through a variety of traditional performances, including Indian music and dancing. There were approximately 30 food and specialty stalls, as well as demonstrations, and arts and craft of Indian culture. It was great to see my friends, Mr and Mrs Ghosh. Mrs Ghosh is a very experienced sitar player. She studied under the famous Ravi Shankar. Her husband accompanies her on another instrument. She had an ensemble there. Their music was very varied, from traditional pieces to more contemporary pieces, and it was a joy to listen to this feast of culture.
People coming from India to the Northern Territory are predominantly from northern and central India. Many migrated to the Northern Territory in the 1970s as they recognised Darwin provided employment opportunities. By the early 1980s the Indian community in Darwin, comprising approximately six families, were joined by the arrival of people of Indian decent from Fiji, Malaysia and Singapore. Today, the Indian community in the Northern Territory includes a diverse range of people, including settlers from southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. These new migrants have been attracted by job opportunities in the Northern Territory and, as I said, the great Territory lifestyle.
Someone who has spent much time from the 1970s and 1980s onwards is my good friend Dr Ganeesh Ramdoss from Nightcliff, who is very well known amongst the Nightcliff community. He, his mother, and sister have contributed much to the community over many years. There are many people working in professional positions in the health sector, too numerous to mention, and in a range of other professions such as engineering. There are also many others in business and the academic field, really contributing to the Northern Territory.
In the past, students from India pursued higher education at American and British universities. Many students are now choosing to study in Australia, including at Charles Darwin University. The harmony we have in Darwin with various cultures is a great point for students to come to Darwin. Difficulties have been reported in the Indian press about some of the southern states; I am not going to comment on that. People are very welcome in Darwin, they feel very welcome. There is a community to support them and, of course, we have an excellent institution in Charles Darwin University.
I am proud to say the Northern Territory government, through the Office of Multicultural Affairs, has supported this event and will continue to do so. I congratulate the Indian Cultural Society performers and volunteers for all their hard work and enthusiasm in bringing this event together. I thank you for the opportunity to talk about India @ Mindil in my speech tonight.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on a very unusual group of people in my electorate. I would say, very delicately, this group of people is very weird, indeed. What I am talking about is the establishment of the Rural Tripe Club, which is coordinated through my electorate office. This group of very strange people came together through my contact with the lovely fellow Eean Thorne. Eean is a member of Probus, which is a community service activity of the Rotary Club. Probus meets the needs of retirees by providing opportunities to keep their minds active, expand their interests, stay healthy through activities like eating tripe, benefit from training programs, network between like-minded people, and enjoy the fellowship of new friends. Probus can provide members of the community with fresh ideas to enrich and fulfil their lives in retirement.
Back to the tripe club - Probus people are not the weird ones. The tripe club in the rural area has been set up under the guidance of the Probus Club, and Eean Thorne in particular. Tripe is the name commonly given to the stomach tissue of the ruminant animals such as oxen, cows, deer, buffalo, sheep, goats and llama. However, generally, tripe today is from cows. These beasts have four stomachs through which their food undergoes different stages of digestion. I can see, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you are very interested in my adjournment tonight, so I will continue.
From the first rumen comes the blanket tripe, so named because of its pile. It varies in thickness and is often accompanied with a layer of fat which needs to be removed. The second stomach is the reticulum, which produces the honeycomb tripe generally preferred by cooks because it keeps its shape during cooking and holds, on its textured surface, the sauce in which it is cooked. Tripe from the third stomach, the omasum, is known as bible, book, or seam tripe. Tripe from the fourth stomach, the abomasum, is reed tripe – glandular tripe – which is rarely used. Sound delicious, do they not?
This club has met a few times at the Virginia Tavern, and I thank Damien O’Brien for supporting the club and encouraging his chef to cook the delicious meals. At first the chef, Trevor, was hesitant as, by his own admission, he had not cooked tripe before. He said he had cooked every other parts of all manner of beast, but not tripe. Through some careful cajoling and encouragement, Trevor has produced some absolutely delicious tripe meals I am told. I would not know, as I do not eat cow stomach linings, and can see no reason, given the cow has perfectly good legs and steaks attached to them to eat.
People who have come along to these lunches have a lovely time tucking into tripe in Guinness, which Trevor specially designed for the group, curry tripe from Sri Lanka, Venetian tripe from Italy, Madrid-style tripe and, of course, the old favourite tripe in white sauce and onions, which is a must at every luncheon.
These luncheons attract a wide cross-section of people including Joy, who owns the lovely Xanadu Retreat at Humpty Doo; Lyn, the bonsai expert; Dorothy from Berry Springs; Noel, the goat farmer – see Gerry, goat tripe – and Raine, the bush fairy who breeds rabbits. Even Trish, my electorate officer, eats tripe. Of course, Eean is there with his many friends from the Tripe Club from Darwin who travel to the Rural Tripe Club lunches. The Darwin Tripe Club has upwards of 40 people attending their lunches. The rural club has about 15 members at the moment and is growing. They meet on a bi-monthly basis and thoroughly enjoy themselves.
They are, indeed, a mad bunch in the rural area. This tripe club has brought together people from all backgrounds, breeding, and lifestyle and one thing they have in common is tripe. I say to them: happy eating, but count me out.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to adjourn tonight to highlight the great work being done by the staff and clients of Bindi Incorporated in Alice Springs, formerly known as the Bindi Centre. It was my great pleasure to visit Bindi recently to see firsthand the terrific projects being undertaken at their Elder Street premises in Alice Springs. I was also very impressed to hear about their plans for the future, which involved expanding on the services they already deliver to people with disabilities in the Central Australian community.
Director Stephen Waterbury, who has been on board since earlier this year, and Business Development Manager, Dave Ezard, have great plans for the future of Bindi. I thank them and their staff for taking the time to show me around the facility.
Many people around the Territory are probably familiar with some of the products made at Bindi. The metal and wooden tuckerboxes are extremely popular; you would not go camping without one. Their outdoor furniture also has a well deserved reputation for quality. I was particularly impressed by their work reconditioning old pallets for local businesses - what a great recycling project.
The very impressive workshop area where these products are made offers rewarding and supported employment for people with disabilities. Workshop supervisor, Rodney Ingram, and his staff do a terrific job, and I urge fellow members who go bush to get a Bindi tuckerbox.
Bindi Incorporated currently has 34 supported employment positions in its Disability Enterprise program covering the workshop, contract area and art studio. It was wonderful to visit the very busy contracts area and meet people working there, including the very busy Business Enterprise Manager, Karen Chambers. In this area, Bindi offers services including mail-outs, shredding - which I have used for my electorate office - and participates in recycling initiatives, including making products from old newspapers and desk calendars.
Bindi has also recently entered into a contractual arrangement to provide services to local business, Colemans Printing. There is also an artists collective operating under the Bindi umbrella, where some very talented local artists are nurtured and supported by Arts Coordinator, Matt Goff. Work by Bindi artists is exhibited nationally and internationally. I have to say, I loved the bird paintings and the very Centralian truck paintings I saw. The hundreds of visitors to Alice Springs next week for the Truckies Reunion will be keen on these particular paintings.
Through these business and enterprise opportunities, Bindi is moving away from reliance on government funding to a certain degree of financial independence. The profits from these enterprises will help support Bindi’s expansion into bigger premises and more programs.
Bindi not only provides meaningful employment for people with disabilities, it also offers a range of creative and interactive programs. Under the Northern Territory government-funded day options program, clients participate in varied activities such as gardening, art and craft, bushwalking and cooking. Under the guidance of Day Services Program Manager, Fiona Stokes, this program also supports people to gain the skills necessary to obtain employment.
I was also very interested in the plans for the Bindi band. It seems there are some very talented musicians amongst the staff and some very keen musicians amongst the clients, with plans to take to the stage. I look forward to hearing about the band’s success at a future community event.
I again thank the Bindi staff for showing me around. I particularly mention Vanessa Stokes and Anna Typuszak; program support workers, Sebastian Hall, Arnold Woodbury, Alecia McNuff and Hiley Diweula, and also to the support workers who do a fantastic job, Hannah Treacey, Cecile Pedersen, Michael Walker, Norm Eastwood and Colin Tilmouth.
There was a real sense of optimism about the future of Bindi backed up by some very sound plans, which made it a pleasure to visit. I would urge all my colleagues to look at the services offered by Bindi, particularly those in Central Australia, and I recommend local businesses look at them too, as well as some of the opportunities working with Bindi may offer.
I would like to talk about the Parks area of my portfolio and reflect on the career of a very accomplished scientist and policy advisor within my Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, who has recently retired.
Dr Peter Whitehead has retired after 33 years of working in the Northern Territory public sector, with 40 years in the public service overall. Dr Whitehead’s working career began in the Commonwealth Department of Transport in 1970, and in 1977 he moved to Darwin to take up a position with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. It was in this capacity Dr Whitehead was instrumental in the negotiations through self-government, to set up and form the Northern Territory Department of Law where he worked until 1984.
It was at that point, and in an era where career change was not so fashionable, Dr Whitehead embarked on a quite radical transformation to follow his passion for science and conservation. It was in this period, while working for the former Conservation Commission, that Dr Whitehead conducted significant research on wetlands including magpie geese; research that has stood the test of time and continues to underpin the very successful management programs for the species.
Over the last couple of decades, Dr Whitehead worked collaboratively with government agencies, academic institutions, and Indigenous landholders in the fields of natural and cultural resource management, wildlife conservation, and Indigenous economic development. His hard work is held in very high regard locally, nationally, and internationally, and his contribution to policy development in the natural resources area will be sorely missed. Dr Whitehead brought a particular depth to policy analysis, coupled with detailed scientific understanding, which is very rare indeed.
Fortunately for all of us, Dr Whitehead’s skills will not be entirely lost to Territorians. I understand he will continue to work with Charles Darwin University assisting Indigenous Territorians reach their aspiration for livelihoods built on wise, natural, resource management.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Northern Territory government and Territorians, I thank Dr Whitehead for his outstanding contributions to the Northern Territory over many years. I wish him all the best for his future endeavours.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to correct the record on something I said during Question Time today. During Question Time I inadvertently transposed two words which unintentionally altered the meaning of the question I was asking.
The source of my question was a quotation from a Southern Districts footballer which was contained in the Northern Territory News of 28 January 2010. Contained in my question was the sentence:
- The abuse was so extreme the footballer in question thought Damian Hale could have pulled a knife on him if he said those things to the wrong person.
The words should have been:
- The abuse was so extreme the footballer in question thought Damian Hale could have a knife pulled on him if he said those things to the wrong person.
This is an example of how a couple of words put in the wrong place can bring about a sentence with an entirely different meaning. I regret making that mistake at the time, and hope the inference contained has not caused any grief. It was certainly not my intention to do that.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, my adjournment debate tonight is about Girraween Primary School farm, which is relatively new; it is only 10 years old. Since its inception the school has gone on in leaps and bounds. In fact, this year, it won the Power and Water School Melaleuca Environment Award.
The recent Sustainable School in Action Field Day at Girraween school was also typical of the get-up-and-go attitude of this school. It was a huge success where students showed community members, parents, and other schools what they have learned in the school farm and how important it is to the school.
The school farm was the initiative of a teacher, Robyn Tidswell, in 2007. With the support of school staff and parents, the students have built the farm from raised bed vegetable gardens with chook tractors, to a small farm with stock including Brahman calves - and I saw them the other day and they are pretty healthy - buffalo calves, pigs, chickens - they are the star attraction and I am not biased - ducks, geese and goats. Currently, the produce being harvested by students from the farm includes corn, tomatoes, beans, eggplants, cucumber, spinach, cabbage, beetroot, bok choy, capsicum, pumpkin, bananas, passionfruit, dragon fruit, paw paw, pineapples and herbs. That is not a bad list of fruit and vegetables from a small farm in a rural school.
Students from preschool to Year 6 are involved in every aspect of the farm from planning, building, and constructing enclosures and shelters to preparing terrace garden beds, sowing crops, caring for animals, harvesting, value-adding and selling produce. In fact, you can buy half a dozen eggs at a reasonable price from the school. If anyone wants some farm fresh eggs, pop down to Girraween Primary School.
A butterfly farm has been built by students. They need a few more butterflies, and I am sure butterflies will come in as soon as word gets around. The students are learning about food stocks for the butterflies, and caterpillars are being established prior to stocking with a variety of butterfly species.
Teachers are using the farm to introduce students to the life cycle of plants and animals, and investigate ideas such as sustainability and living globally. This valuable teaching tool is being used in an effective way, showing students the real life applications of what they are learning. Not only are students learning about sustainability, they have also shown real development in their social skills, their self-esteem, confidence, and public speaking.
I was shown the garden two weeks ago, when they had their Sustainable School in Action Field Day. The students who showed me their garden were proud as punch of their achievements. An interesting thing occurred - I cannot remember the student’s name, unfortunately. I went to look at the pumpkins - I used to grow pumpkins out bush. A problem with the bigger varieties of pumpkins is if you do not have enough bees they do not pollinate and you have to do it by hand. In fact, at Daly River they used to call it ‘we are marrying the pumpkins’, and they had a word for that. I said this to the young girl and she said: ‘Yes, that is exactly what we do’. This was about 8.30 am to 9 am, when the pollen is at its best - she picked a male flower, looked for the female flower, and stuck it on top. That is the way they produce their pumpkins. When there is a shortage of bees, which sometimes happens in the rural area, you can get around the problem and still get a good crop of pumpkins.
They took a real interest; they understood what it was about. These two young people were really keen on the activities of the school. Not only were they keen on those activities, they were so proud to show visitors what they had done. That is great; that is the self-esteem and confidence which is important with this type of activity.
I am looking forward to helping the school community in future plans for the farm, which include a new outdoor learning centre to complement the school farm. This centre will expand teaching opportunities and hands-on learning. There will be an expansion of the horticultural area to include rare and Indigenous fruit trees; they will build a new permanent animal shelter, and extend the vegetable garden to allow for more produce to be value-added for sale and used in preparation of healthy meals.
The Chair of the school council, Phil Hausler, works in the department of Resources and has a good knowledge of agriculture. He is also helping out as a hands-on school council chairman. With people like Phil and Robyn Tidswell working with these children, you know whatever they do is going to be successful. It gives the school a great feeling; it is not just bricks and mortar. It is a school with activities which very much relate to the rural area and kids can relate to. When you see the kids’ faces and how much they want to show you what they have done, you know there are good things happening.
Congratulations to all those people involved, and to all the teachers as well; without their support these things would not happen. Congratulation to the school kids for doing something good for the community. It is a good feeling going there, and I say well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016