2005-08-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Ms Helen Horne MBE, British Consul-General. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitor.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Reverend Dr Philip Freier, Anglican Bishop of the Northern Territory; the Reverend Steve Orme, the Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, Northern Synod; and Mr James Cox who is representing the Baptist Church. On behalf of all honourable members, I wish you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly –
1) note the terrorist attacks in London on 7 and 21 July, and in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on 23 July,
and records its profound sympathy for the people of Great Britain and Egypt, particularly all those
who lost family members;
3) offers total support for the united efforts of the nations of the world to combat terrorism; and
4) supports and commends the prompt and effective action of both the British and Egyptian police in
apprehending those suspected of complicity in these outrageous acts.
On 7 July this year, bombs exploded in the London underground, and later on a city bus, killing 56 people and injuring another 775. Then on 23 July, a triple bomb attack on the Egyptian holiday resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh claimed the lives of 65 people, wounding 200 others.
The Northern Territory government strongly condemns these malicious acts of terror and offers its condolences to the family and friends of the victims.
The London bombing was the worst attack on the city since World War II and came at a time when the English were still celebrating the news that they had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. The attack took place as thousands of commuters packed underground train stations to make their way to work. The attacks occurred at rush hour and were timed to create maximum havoc and to take the maximum number of lives. At 8.50 am, the bombs were detonated simultaneously at Aldgate, Edgeware Road and Kings Cross Stations, and nearly an hour later on a double decker bus in Bloomsbury. Two of the bombs, at Aldgate and Edgeware Road, were in trains just below the surface so the force of the blast was dissipated into relatively wide tunnels. Seven commuters died instantly in each train. However, the bomb on the Piccadilly Line near Kings Cross went off inside one of the underground’s deepest tubes over 30 m below the surface. Twenty-one died immediately and others later. Nearly an hour later, in nearby Bloomsbury, a bomb was detonated ripping the roof off a city bus. At least 13 passengers died on the spot with others later succumbing to injuries. Dying later of head injuries sustained on the bus was Australian man, Sam Ly, from Melbourne. The entire tube transport service was shut down as a result of the blasts.
Touchingly, a week later, tens of thousands of Londoners and visitors stood silently in Trafalgar Square in memory of the bombing victims. At the commemoration, London Lord Mayor, Ken Livingstone, said emergency services had been magnificent and he praised Londoners’ calm and courage.
Those responsible were young middle class Britains between 19 and 30 years old. They were Muslims from Leeds in England’s north and one from nearby Aylesbury. The bombers were identified after their parents reported they were missing. Their names matched credit cards and driver’s licences found at the scene. Two of them had visited Pakistan and Afghanistan for military training. Their bombs were made of accessible materials popular with al-Qaeda trained operators. A group calling itself the Secret Organisation of al-Qaeda in Europe claimed responsibility for the attack but that has not been verified. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said the London bombers were driven by an evil ideology.
On 21 July, a second bomb attack attempting to reproduce the carnage of 7 July was staged in the London underground. Fortunately, the bomb detonators failed, and three of the bombers were arrested in the United Kingdom, with a fourth arrested in Italy; Britain is seeking his extradition.
One of the unfortunate consequences of the action of terrorism is a loss of trust in those around us, a heightening of paranoia. In a tragic incident, a Brazilian electrician was killed by police. It was later found that Jean Charles de Menezes was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and his shooting was a very terrible mistake. Our thoughts go out to his family and his friends.
Police are trying to uncover the larger network that may have supported the bombers and those who struck exactly two weeks earlier. No solid connections have yet been made between the two incidents.
Meanwhile, another terrorist bombing took place in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. Seventeen foreigners were among the 64 killed when three suicide bombers drove vehicles into the resort area on the night of 23 July. Two massive car bombs went off simultaneously at 1.15 am, two miles apart.
The first bomb exploded in an area frequented mainly by Egyptians working in the town’s resorts. A second bomb, placed by a man at a minibus park, also killed mostly Egyptians. A third attack was from another suicide bomber who drove into the reception area of the Ghazala Garden Hotel. The dead, very sadly, at the hotel included Britain’s Kerry Davies and Christina Miller, who were planning to relocate to Darwin to work for a sports betting company, CanBet, a subsidiary of International Allsports.
At least five groups have claimed responsibility for the bombings; none of them have been verified. The previously unknown Holy Warriors of Egypt said its supporters had been responsible and named five people it claimed were the bombers.
These bombings happened on 23 July, which is a very important national day in Egypt: the 53rd anniversary of the 1952 revolution which overthrew the monarchy and brought in the army officers’ regime, which was then led to Gamal Abdel-Nasser.
Sharm el-Sheikh is the winter home of the Egyptian President, Hosny Mubarak. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spent the New Year’s holiday in a private villa at Sharm el-Sheikh with his family. There were 9000 British tourists there at the time of the bombing.
The strike at the heart of the city, which is much better guarded than most Egyptian cities, was seen as a significant victory for the terrorists who planned this bombing. The night after the bombing, about 7000 candles were lit by Egyptian and foreign tourists in front of Sharm el-Sheikh’s Hard Rock Caf to mourn the victims of the blasts. A young man who distributed the candles to tourists said:
The London Guardian newspaper commented:
I extend our government’s sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the Sharm el-Sheikh and London terrorist bombings.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this motion for obvious reasons.
When I was considering what words I would use to express my thoughts, I became somewhat frustrated that I was unable to express myself in a way that reflected my feelings about these bombings that have, again, ripped apart so many innocent families in the name of a cause.
For inspiration, I turned to the writings of others, and I would like to acknowledge as the source of my inspiration the comments of Mona Eltahawy of the Arabic newspaperAsharq al-Awsat:
We also tend to always remember where we were when the bombs went off. I remember where I was, Madam Speaker, when the London bombings occurred. I was with you and some other women members of this parliament in your office. Indeed, it occurred during the last parliamentary sittings. Women from both sides of this Chamber were enjoying a night of conversation and each other’s company. I received a phone call, you will remember. We turned on your television set and we were all glued to the television. We were shocked and, for a while, we sat in silence. It is fair to say that it affected us all very deeply.
Having said that, we shared a special moment; one that all of us will remember forever. All of us are touched by this. All of us are affected in a number of ways. I am certain that none of us in this Chamber have ever heard of a woman, however, called Marie Fatayi-Williams. There is no reason why any of us should ever have heard of her; she is simply a mother who took a flight to London after the 7 July bombings. Marie was a Catholic and she married a Muslim. Together they developed a love that blinded them to the supposed conflict of their faiths and, in a celebration of that love, married and became parents. It is for us as a people a fundamental story, one of love, often arising as a result of differences and one that presses on regardless of the differences perceived by others.
Through their love they had a son, Anthony, and I would like to talk about Anthony. He was a young man, 26 years of age, who was well loved by his parents and he was a normal type of bloke. He liked rap music and said that he wanted to launch his own record label. New York is the place he would have done that had he had the choice. He also told a cousin of his that he wanted to become a politician in Nigeria to try to fix some of that country’s problems. In short, Anthony was a young man whom we all know: starry eyed, idealistic, imbued with the passion of youth, not tainted with the inevitable cynicism that later life seems to bring to so many of us. How many Anthonys do we know, Madam Speaker?
The second thing we should know about this Anthony is that, on 7 July 2005, he did not want to be late for work. This is an important thing to know because, if he had been tardy or less conscientious, he would have taken the London underground, which was his habit. However, on that day there were delays in the underground network so Anthony caught a bus. He caught the No 30 bus that took him through Tavistock Square. As random as a raffle ticket draw, Anthony made a decision that would end his life. The semtex or C-4 or whatever it was that blew the bus apart in Tavistock Square, did not discriminate. It would have just as easily exploded in a mine, or at some roadworks, or wherever it was at the time it was detonated. We cannot expect an explosive to discriminate.
Frankly, the person who set the bomb was just as indiscriminate. He could not have known Anthony, or about his rap music, or about his political ambitions in Nigeria. The image is a stark one: Marie Fatayi-Williams clutching a photograph of her dead son asking a question that has been asked and, sadly, will be asked again and again into the future: ‘How many mothers’ hearts shall be maimed?’ My heart goes out to those mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, lovers, husbands, wives, partners - all those people I cannot know, and could not hope to know, but I wish them peace.
What I would rather wish, however, Madam Speaker, is joy. The joy of a family gathering, the laughter of a Passover or a Christmas, or the spiritual intensity of a Hajj, with those around you who love you and who you love, the joy of looking about you and seeing everyone there who you care about. Instead, the best I can offer is a wish for peace when, at that next family gathering, there is going to be an empty space where Anthony used to sit. A wish of peace from me rings hollow in these circumstances but, sadly, it is all I can offer.
Madam Speaker, I say this: there is little I can do, little we can do, but we can stand and be counted in our resolve to end this cowardice. Shoulder to shoulder, we can all call upon those who would do these despicable acts that someone like Anthony would have liked to have stopped. Theirs is a view of the world that is a reckless one. It is the very serious equivalent of picking up the ball and going home and saying no one else can play.
The point is we are not playing and this is serious, and people like Anthony die and their mothers are stricken with grief. This is to say to the terrorists: when one of your bombs goes off, you kill families and you kill the ability for families to live and love. In Bali, when the Sari Club was destroyed, you brought poverty to the very people you claimed to defend. When children went hungry in Bali after those bombings, they went hungry because their parents could not work in an industry that was damaged by your vengeful and stupid spite. Sadly, we do not see the photographs of their parents who have lost their jobs trying to explain to their babies why they cannot eat when the evening meal does not happen.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, the parliament and, I am sure, of all Territorians, I pray for peace for those families. I pray for their mothers and I pray for peace.
Madam SPEAKER: I now call on members to observe one minute silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Assembly on my visit to Indonesia last week. I was honoured to attend the official ceremony for the 60th anniversary of Indonesian independence as a guest of the President, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and to meet separately with him to cement a close working relationship with Indonesia that will benefit the business, cultural and sporting interests of all Territorians.
I have been advised that I am the first of any Australian state or federal minister to attend a flag raising ceremony at the Merdeka Palace, and to be present at the 60th anniversary ceremony was a real privilege. I was honoured to be seated next to the Foreign Minister from the Netherlands at the official ceremony, and to be announced by the President at the reception dinner that evening. The Territory was placed in a position of great honour and respect, and I have thanked the President for his kindness. It is very pleasing that I was able to accept the invitation to attend the celebrations; even though it meant I was not able to attend the sittings last week. There is no better way of strengthening government-to-government relations than accepting such an invitation from the Indonesian President. The invitation to attend this important celebration reflects the strength of our relationship. Our closest neighbour is Indonesia, a long-standing friend of the Territory.
The uniqueness of our relationship is reflected in the historic memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Northern Territory and Indonesian governments in 1992. It is the only known formal agreement between the government of the Republic of Indonesia and a state, territory or provincial government of another country. Strengthening the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia was the focus of my meeting with President Yudhoyono. We acknowledged the importance of the MOU as a vehicle for further cooperation between our two countries and discussed potential opportunities in the areas of trade, education and health, as well as the Territory’s contribution to the tsunami relief effort.
I also took the opportunity to acknowledge the recent inclusion of the Territory as a development partner in the Brunei Indonesia Malaysia and Philippines East Asian Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA); and certainly paid tribute to the work of the previous minister for what he did there.
I was particularly pleased to be able to present the President with a special gift from the people of the Territory to mark the 60th anniversary of independence. Our gift of funding to establish a vocational development program for 20 Indonesian nurses to be provided through the Charles Darwin University was welcomed by the President. The program will provide the necessary training to upgrade the qualifications of nurses to that of Registered Nurse in the Territory; a standard that is recognised internationally. The Territory will work with Indonesia to implement the program which, I am sure, will prove to be as successful as the Territory’s 50th anniversary gift, which were two malaria research fellowships through the Menzies School of Health Research.
During my visit to Jakarta, I also met with Indonesia Foreign Minister, Dr Hassan Wirayuda, who was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss mechanisms for strengthening the value of the MOU between our two countries, including reinvigorating the joint policy committee which is the mechanism for managing the MOU relationship. I expect that our governments will work collaboratively to ensure the JPC continues to be a useful means of coordinating and fostering economic development cooperation between Indonesia and the Territory.
My meeting with the State Minister for Culture and Tourism, Jero Watjik, focused on tourism development opportunities especially relating to inbound and outbound air links, hospitality management training, and cruise ship and sailing-based tourism. We expressed significant interest in taking an integrated regional approach to exploring these opportunities, and will certainly be doing so in the future. Opportunities to increase trade between Indonesia and the Territory and capitalising on the potential of the AustralAsia trade route was the key subject of my discussions with officials from the Ministry of Trade. We also talked about live cattle exports, mining opportunities, air links, Customs and quarantine services.
On that note, Northern Territory government officials and representatives of some regional shipping lines are currently in Indonesia progressing commercial negotiations on the possibility of a new shipping service between Surabaya and Darwin. In September, the Northern Territory government and FreightLink will deliver a joint presentation to the ASEAN Ports and Shipping conference in Surabaya.
Whilst in Indonesia I received a special briefing from Australian officials administering grants and loans under the $1bn Australian/Indonesian partnership for reconstruction and development established following the devastation of the tragic tsunami of late last year. The package applies not only to developments in Aceh but also other parts of Indonesia and represents significant opportunity for Territory firms. The Territory’s proposed reconstruction support will, at the suggestion of President Yudhoyono, focus on the eastern Indonesian provinces which were severely affected by earthquakes not long before the tsunami tragedy. We are working with the Indonesian government and AusAID to scope our support to this very important project.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes this report. It indicates a strengthening of policy in regard to developing stronger relationships leading to trade with our nearest neighbour, Indonesia. Chief Minister, I would say, however, from opposition that we sincerely missed you from the Chamber last week and it really was not the same without you.
It is important to acknowledge that Indonesia has made significant gains in recent years. Often, the magnificent gains of Indonesia’s strengthening democracy are unrecognised and their 60th anniversary celebrations are also of particular significance. I trust that this renewed focus on Indonesia would lead to the development of a stand-alone Asian Relations and Trade unit, that we would have a greater focus on the capacity delivered to us through the AusAID budget to allow programs to be acquitted here in the Northern Territory, capitalising on our strategic advantage of being close to the region, and also having prior education and cultural links with the region, and a greater portion of the AusAID budget could be acquitted through the Northern Territory.
I also hope that the policy shift will lead to an increase in language acquisition within our primary and secondary schools. There was a time when that was quite strong and it has weakened in recent years. That needs to be revamped. Also, sporting competitions and exchanges are the very substance that relations are built upon which lead to trade. On that note, the Palmerston-Kupang sister city model is a very effective community organisation that is leading to effective relationships within the region leading to sport which will lead to trade.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is heartening to hear bipartisan support for my trip last week. I thought that I heard the Opposition Leader bag it, and to say that the Chief Minister was arrogant in accepting an invitation from the President of Indonesia to attend such a significant anniversary.
I was disappointed because, as I said quite a number of times in the media, when I received the invitation I initially said no because I thought: ‘We are sitting and it is important to be here’. Then I thought: ‘How many times would you get an invitation like this to represent the Territory at such a significant anniversary?’. So I did weigh it up, and it was disappointing to hear the Opposition Leader to say that first she bagged the fact that I was going and thought it was a sign of arrogance that I would actually accept the invitation.
I was proud to accept it, and we were very welcome and we were certainly recognised in being there. It will only strengthen what is a very important relationship for the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to report on the significant educational outcomes being achieved in indigenous education and boys’ education at Gillen Primary School in Alice Springs. Since 1999, students have seen this school change from a large, predominantly non-indigenous enrolment to a smaller, predominantly indigenous student population. Currently, total student enrolment at Gillen is 243, with 162 - that is 67% - being indigenous and, of these, 104 are males and 58 are female. Thus, 43% of the total enrolment consists of male indigenous students. Principal John Morgan and the staff of Gillen have instituted a multi-layered approach to working with this particular student cohort, an approach which has had beneficial outcomes for all students.
The first layer involves whole-school indigenous programs whereby indigenous staff members, comprising an Aboriginal and Islander education worker and an Aboriginal resource officer, and three teachers provide important role models for students. An indigenous bridging unit currently caters for 17 at-risk and disengaged students who come from remote communities and town camps. This unit has seen 15 students make the successful transition to mainstream classes since its establishment in 2003.
Further to this, a community outreach program, the Larapinta Valley Learning Centre, has been set up in collaboration with Tangentyere Council. This features a primary school program provided by Gillen, adult art and craft programs delivered by Batchelor Institute, a community maintenance course for at-risk youth, and a nutrition program.
The second layer is based on the accelerated literacy program. Gillen piloted this program in 2001. Following significant literacy gains with the pilot, accelerated literacy has been implemented across the school. By focusing on learning achievements, accelerated literacy simultaneously addresses both learning and behavioural issues.
Layer three involves two programs, Rock and Water, and Boys’ Business. Rock and Water was developed to help boys respond to the changing roles of boys in a modern society. It comprises lessons on physical strength, relationships, body language, and mental strength. All boys in Years 5 and 6 take part, and a modified program is taught separately to girls. Boys’ Business is a specific program developed by music educator Bob Smith where senior boys participate in a one week session once a term.
The programs at Gillen Primary have brought about significant social and academic gains for all students. These gains are evident across four areas:
the school’s reputation as a school that looks after both indigenous and non-indigenous
students;
primary schools in the region, close to the Northern Territory average of 83.1%. Attendance
of indigenous students at Gillen is 74.4%;
11 suspensions in the last nine years;
show that out of 26 boys in Years 5 and 6, only four are not reading at year level.
Gillen Primary School’s success has been recognised nationally. These include a state achievement award for literacy in 2003, being named a Quality School in the National Quality Schools Awards for Literacy 2003 and, more recently, a NAIDOC Week Central Australian Indigenous School of the Year Award.
Gillen Primary School is a credit to the work and dedication of John Morgan and his staff at the school. As more indigenous people move to Alice Springs from outlying communities, schools will need to change to meet the needs of a different cohort of students. Excellent, innovative programs like those in place at Gillen are paving the way in modern primary school education and providing examples for other schools in the Alice Springs region. I commend Mr Morgan, his staff and indeed everyone at Gillen Primary School for this outstanding result.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is a welcome report. I have visited this facility and members on this side of the Chamber are familiar with the work at the annexe at Gillen Primary. It does provide a very important element, and that is a successful model that is working in one place, that could be source for hope for the sorts of models that can be run in other places such as in Katherine.
The fine work of certain teachers should be acknowledged, as you did, minister. They really do make the difference. We can have money and programs, but without that extra bit of magic that comes from hardworking and dedicated teachers, it is just programs and money that does not lead to results. It is the human contribution by significant dedicated people that has made this difference.
To add to this very important model - which has shown some success and will lead to hope - we should strengthen it by revisiting the notion of school attendance and welfare payments so that there is a relationship between the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children attend the programs that are started to strengthen education outcomes, support families and create hope for the future, which should be related to the attendance at school, which goes back to the benefits that are received through welfare.
I believe, as members opposite do - and I know members also on the other side of the Chamber believe - it is time we stand up to explore ways where we can work in cooperation with communities to develop that strong link between school attendance and the recognition that the benefit that comes by welfare should also be related to the parents’ responsibility to send their children to the school.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will not comment. However, I thought there might have been another speaker.
I thank the member opposite for very supportive comments. I believe that is right: you can have innovative and creative programs and you can throw lots of money at a school or a situation. Unless you have dedicated and creative people in themselves prepared to go at least halfway in meeting the very different needs of the special cohort of kids, it is not going to work. I accept that, and the member is quite right. Quite clearly, here we have a wonderful, rich mix of talented, creative and committed staff and, of course, the right programs in place.
In relation to tying a family’s social benefits payments to attendance, this is an example of a school working beautifully, with a high attendance rate from indigenous kids, without any of those punitive measures around it. It is something that is tossed up from time to time. We have not actually sat down and considered and analysed it. Often these are the poorest people in the community, we would be further penalising …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: I believe that has to be taken into account.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, today I report on my recent visit to Alice Springs and the activities that are happening there in the world of sport and recreation.
We went to the last election with a fantastic package of commitments to build better sporting facilities in the Red Centre, and we are delivering on those commitments. We are building better facilities at Traeger Park with a $3.05m contract awarded while I was there to Probuild (NT) Pty Ltd for the construction of a new grandstand at Traeger Park. The bulldozers have moved in. The facility will include change rooms, an umpires room, spectator seating and, most importantly, given my two portfolio responsibilities, a lift and a ramp connecting the new building to the existing Mona’s Lounge, providing access to those sport-loving Territorians who have a mobility impairment.
I was also pleased to meet with the CEO of the Central Australian Football League, Mr Gary Learmonth, who is delighted that the contract for the last stage of the Traeger Park development has been let.
Following our $130 000 commitment to the Alice Springs Golf Club, I met with Mr Colin Penley and several of his committee members at that spectacular desert golf club, one of the top 10 desert golf clubs in its rankings. I am very much looking forward to working with the Alice Springs Golf Club and, indeed, with golf clubs and fans more broadly to ensure that this sport has a secure future in the Territory.
I also took the time to have a look at other sporting facilities in Alice Springs. I met with NT Netball representative, Leanne Southam, at the Pat Gallagher Netball Centre, and saw some of the Territory’s best up and coming netballers in action during their Saturday morning games. There was a very large crowd of parents there supporting the juniors.
With just a few steps next door, I was able then to view the future of Territory football and meet with Mr Neil Smark at Ross Park to discuss our government’s $500 000 commitment for a new home ground for junior football. I look forward to working with the NT Football Federation as we deliver on this commitment.
My trip could not have come at a better time. Mr John van Groningen, from Athletes as Role Models was visiting Alice Springs at the time and I was able to obtain a comprehensive update on the schedule of visits to remote communities from elite athletes throughout Australia in the coming six months.
I was pleased to learn that initial evaluations of this program suggest that it is having a direct impact on school attendance. I also know that the program now includes ongoing e-mail contact between these elite athlete role models and the students at remote schools. I look forward to encouraging this program during my ministry.
I was also fortunate to meet some of the key organisers of our Masters Games. I am in absolute awe of the work they do to ensure that the games are a great experience for everyone who participates. I have promised to participate. Of course, there is the $8.1m for a fantastic new aquatic centre.
The hallmark of this government has been our ability to balance attracting big sporting events with a need to support grassroots initiatives, and this continues. As I outlined in this House last week, in February next year, we will see first-class Rugby League action at Anzac Oval when the Penrith Panthers take on the Newcastle Knights. This is a just reward to the people of Alice Springs for their dedication to their sports, and it builds on our previous achievement of bringing preseason AFL to Traeger Park.
I am, indeed, privileged to hold the portfolio of Sport and Recreation and to follow on the good work of the previous minister, Mr Ah Kit. I have had a fantastic few weeks meeting many of the hardworking volunteers, players and officials who run and participate in our sports throughout the Territory. I look forward to meeting with many more of our dedicated and hardworking Territory volunteers, players and officials as I visit other areas of the Territory in the coming weeks. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is good news for Alice Springs. However, it is the duty of the opposition to analyse, very carefully, the expectation that has been delivered to certain communities to ensure that they are actually delivered in the detail in which they were articulated during the election campaign. Yes, granted, that there is some welcome news for Traeger Park. However, it appears to be the same story that is replicated either north or south; that when it comes to grandstands, we do get the facility but not quite to the expectation of the community concerned. I would like to know whether that grandstand at Traeger Park is actually going to be built as the community was led to believe it was going to be built after the election.
Similarly, with the Palmerston Magpies at this end of town. It appears that the commitment has been delivered - not quite, because it is a grandstand missing some seats.
I go back to Alice Springs, and talk about the salt intrusion at the Alice Springs Golf Course - a very important part of our tourism infrastructure. There was nice talk, good visit, and some money given. However, there was a commitment - and I hope that we hear this has been delivered - of $150 000 to research the specific issue of salt intrusion on that course; not just to identify that there is a problem but to go to the next stage – a solution. There are solutions that have been talked about in Alice Springs of how the salt intrusion can be reduced by a cocktail of water that is flowing right by the shore. That was raised by Mr Penley.
Coming back to the Top End, a lot of money is being spent on certain places that appear to suit certain cohorts. It strikes me, driving past Leanyer with the great facility there, that there are many young people in Palmerston who have also noticed the great improvements at Leanyer. There is a skate park in Palmerston that has no shade structure whatsoever, and they are noticing it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for those comments. I just want to point out the skate park at Palmerston was built by Palmerston City Council. And you are quite right - they should be putting shade in that skate park. I have said that for years. In this day and age, you should not be building a skate park without putting shade over it. I urge you to talk to the Mayor of Palmerston, Annette Burke, about that because kids are out there getting sunburnt and it is the responsibility of the council to build a facility with all the shade associated with it. The Northern Territory government, as part of its funding of skate parks, put shade over skate parks, which is a really important thing to do.
In relation to your concerns about Alice Springs and whether we are going to deliver on the detail as articulated – yes. When I was there I showed them the designs, the plans; it is as we articulated. The people are very enthusiastic about the type of facility they have. Picking up on some newspaper concern about whether it will be finished in time for the AFL match down there - yes, indeed. I have said some of the Crownies may not quite be cold enough, but there will certainly be a fantastic grandstand and facility there for people to enjoy, which will help everyone …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make this important statement to the Assembly today about the government reaching financial close with the Darwin Cove Consortium on the Darwin City Waterfront Convention Centre Development.
Financial close for the project occurred on 9 May 2005 this year. The $1.1bn project will add an exciting new dimension to the city of Darwin, a new dimension for locals, a new dimension for jobs, and new dimension for our tourism industry.
The government has had a strong vision for the waterfront development from the outset. It will be a precinct for people with foreshore access around the entire 2 km promenade, and extensive public open space that will include significant parklands providing deep shade throughout the development area. The precinct will balance residential privacy with public accessibility, providing a vibrant space for up to 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It will have, as one of its central attractions, a convention centre that will boost significantly new business tourism to the Top End with leisure and recreational opportunities like year-round swimming, and great restaurants and cafs providing a future attraction for tourists to visit Darwin.
Darwin will have a prestigious convention space, superbly located to take full advantage of water views that will attract major events. The convention centre will be built under the government’s public/private partnership policy with the Build, Own, Operate and Transfer arrangement over a 25-year period, allowing the government to pay for the centre over time, and gain full ownership at the end of the period. The other two key components of the project are a $160m investment in community facilities that the government will fund in Stage 1 and the private sector will pay for in Stage 2; and a property development that will be built progressively over a 15-year period by the consortium from which the government will reap an appreciating return as capital values climb over the development period.
I would like to emphasise that this is not a project that will swamp the Darwin residential market. It will be built progressively in line with market forces, with the consortium having up to 15 years to complete the work. It is a significant vote of confidence by the national and global markets in the future of our great capital city. This will be a project for all Territorians to seek rewards from, to take pride in, and to receive enjoyment from - rewards because a minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry. In Stage 1 alone, between 2005 and 2009, about $300m in construction expenditure will occur within the local economy. In the consortium itself there is considerable local industry representation including Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture; Macmahon NT, formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell; Connell Mott MacDonald; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt; and Knight Frank. Around 1000 direct jobs will be created during the construction phase with 200 direct jobs being created during operation. $190m in today’s prices will be generated in additional tourism expenditure over a 20-year period.
There will be reward from the economic stimulation the project will contribute to the central business district drawing residents and visitors alike back to Darwin’s heart through a significant enhancement of the peninsula’s built form and landscaping. We will take pride in the development because the waterfront will be transformed from an industrial wasteland in the main to an environmental and civic show piece. It will turn the city towards our magnificent harbour in a way never before envisaged, offering a fine reception for Territorians to enjoy, and visiting passengers and crew to be impressed by. We will have a convention centre that is authentically iconic.
Enjoyment will come from Territorians being able to swim year round by the sea. Families and friends will be able to picnic in the parks, walk the promenades around the 2 km of foreshore, and enjoy the markets. People will be able to enjoy coffee or a meal and walk through the heritage trails. We will be able to enjoy the public art. The precinct will be a place for special celebrations, be they indoors in the people’s convention centre or outdoors celebrating such events as Self-Government Day or New Year’s Day.
Our challenge is not to develop a ‘formulaic’ waterfront, a style that is already prevalent around Australia, but rather to stamp this project with the quality that will serve to distinguish Darwin in a global context, to set it apart, exhibiting the unique characteristics of our city, by drawing on our rich cultural past, our dynamic present, and our promising future.
Just as the Army Presence in the North project contributed significantly to the Top End construction sector for a decade in the 1990s, so will the waterfront project provide at least a decade of construction activity to underpin the local economy with a stable and substantial base. This activity comes at a time when other major projects are under way, such as the Alcan expansion on the Gove Peninsula, the Business Park, the Darwin international fuel terminal at East Arm, and the Wickham Point gas plant.
The process of putting this project in place commenced in early 2003 when government undertook an assessment of the need for a convention centre and, if this was found to be case, where it should be located. By mid-2003, it became clear that a convention centre was needed, with government intervention in the marketplace necessary to make it happen. The assessment showed that, while a convention centre would generate considerable economic benefits for the Top End economy, many of those benefits would not be able to be captured by a purely private sector investment. The benefits accrued are dispersed widely to hotel and transport operators as well as tour companies, retailers and restaurant owners, hence the government’s involvement to allow these benefits to be enjoyed broadly throughout the economy.
In May of that year, a team of government representatives sought to market test the project, putting forward to around eight major private sector groups in one-on-one sessions the vision of a waterfront development with the convention centre as its centre piece. The key messages from this exercise were that the concept was bold and highly attractive in principle from a market perspective and that the government should take the project to the marketplace in an efficient manner and simply not mess around. Make decisions in good time and in an orderly manner so that all parties know where they stand was the message.
The government made its decision, subsequently, to proceed to the marketplace to seek a partnership arrangement and, in September 2003, called for expressions of interest, putting $100m on the table as the government’s offer being primarily for the convention centre. With a strong response from the market, 11 expressions of interest in total, the government proceeded in January 2004 to appoint three highly capable and competitive consortia to undertake detailed bids. By September of that year, the Darwin Cove Consortium was selected as the preferred proponent, and by May of this year, financial close was achieved and that consortium became the successful consortium.
Among many remarkable things about the government’s approach to this project, there is one in particular, in relation to timing, that I wish to acknowledge before the Assembly today. From commencement in September 2003 when the government sought expressions of interest from the marketplace to participate in the project, the government proceeded efficiently to financial close within 20 months, exactly as major companies had requested when we market tested the project in May 2003. For a $1.1bn project requiring international finance, this compares very well with equivalent projects elsewhere in Australia in terms of project negotiations of such complexity.
The consortium for the project is led by the international banking group ABN AMRO. The bank is prominent in major construction projects in Australia, with sound credentials in public/private partnerships, including, among numerous major projects, the $1.1bn Lane Cove tunnel in Sydney and the $425m Spencer Street Station redevelopment in Melbourne.
It is important to note that despite speculation in recent days surrounding the decision of some of the ABN AMRO management team to join Babcock and Brown, ABN AMRO remains committed to the project. The bank is ranked 11th in Europe and 20th in the world, and has the resources worldwide to fill the gaps left by the outgoing management team. Importantly, all contracts are in place. This means that despite any changes to its management team, the bank is contractually bound to fulfil its obligations – and why wouldn’t they want to? I can report that, even as we speak, it is in the process of initiating transitional arrangements to be put in place while longer term arrangements are finalised. Let me assure Territorians that these management changes have not and will not cause delays to the project.
Another principal member is the Toga Group of companies who will construct the residential, hospitality and Stage 2 community infrastructure. Established in 1963, Toga is one of Australia’s largest privately-owned groups with national and international interests in property development, construction, hospitality and aquaculture. The group is the parent company for the Medina Apartment Group, Vibe Hotels Australia and Travelodge, with Medina to manage the apartment hotel within the Darwin City Waterfront.
Other important participants of major contractors include Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture with a key interest in the construction of the Convention Centre; Macmahon Holdings, which now incorporates the NT part of Henry Walker Eltin, with principal responsibilities for the civil works, including the sea wall that will form a body of permanent water within Kitchener Bay; Ogden IFC, operators of the Convention Centre, with good experience nationally and internationally for convention centre operations; and Honeywell, asset managers for the convention centre and a well-known international group.
Advisors and consultants to the consortium include: Hassell, project planners and architects, with a globally established practice from this well-known firm; Connell Matt MacDonald, project engineers; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt, quantity surveyors; and Knight Frank, property sales and marketing.
This will be a public/private partnership. From the government’s contribution towards the convention centre and Stage 1 of community infrastructure, we will leverage a $1.1bn investment in the Northern Territory. The project will be a mixed public infrastructure/convention centre/residential/commercial development. It will consist of: the Darwin convention and exhibition centre; community infrastructure throughout; a hospitality precinct; residential development; cruise ship terminal facility; retail/commercial space; and full public access to all foreshore areas. The public components will include the convention centre, Stage 1 of the community infrastructure, and financial returns to government from residential sales.
The convention centre will consist of 1500-seat plenary space, divisible into two separate sections; 4000 m2 of exhibition space, divisible into three separate spaces; and approximately 1000 m2 of function room space. There is a March 2008 completion date, although an earlier completion is being targeted. The Build, Own, Operate and Transfer – BOOT - arrangement with the consortium includes design and construction by the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture, with the private sector providing finance, design and construct, maintenance and operational services. In operations over a 25 year concession period, Ogden IFC will be the operator. The owners and operators during this period will be provided with incentives to attract national and international delegates. For maintenance, Honeywell will be the asset manager. Government payments may be abated or suspended if the convention centre is not maintained to an appropriate standard.
The government has approved and entered into financing arrangements for the design, construction, finance, maintenance and operation of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre as follows:
the consortium’s construction costs for the convention centre is $102.85m;
opening and Territory-owned construction;
the Territory availability payment will be around $12m annually for the first full year in
the 2008-09 year, paid on a quarterly basis over 25 years that includes capital, financing
costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based components;
at the end of the concession period of 25 years, the convention centre will revert to
Territory ownership;
for comparative purposes, it is necessary to express all costs in today’s dollars. In the
case of the convention centre, this cost is $115m, a 10.3% discount rate as of 1 July 2005,
which includes overall financing costs at around $3m per annum for operational support; and
security will be assured as no payments are made until the convention centre work is completed and ready for use.
For community infrastructure Stage 1, the government has approved and entered into financing arrangements for the design, construction and finance of the Stage 1 community infrastructure, with a maximum price of $94.6m. This work will include:
marine works at $41.8m. These works include creation of a retention pond at East Arm Port,
dredging of the convention centre pad and lagoons, and construction of the sea wall for the
convention centre and the lagoon breakwater;
services and infrastructure at $7.7m, which includes all site power, sewer, communications
and water infrastructure required for the various facilities;
roads and car parking at $3.7m. All internal roads to service the development and all on-street
car parking and traffic management devices;
bridge link, stairs and lifts at $3.8m: pedestrian access stairs down the escarpment from
Smith Street and a covered bridge link into the site including viewing platform and glass lifts
to ground level;
water recreation of $11.1m with the inclusion of a wave pool, children’s water play facilities and
shade and rest areas integrated with the public domain landscape;
public domain at $11.4m, which includes landscaped public open space adjacent to the water
recreation facilities, covered walkways linking the various elements around the promenade,
water features and other facilities such as barbecue areas;
structured car park, $9.1m. A multi-level car park adjacent to the hospitality precinct;
a new cruise ship terminal at $4.5m will provide facilities for visiting cruise ships; and, importantly,
the Avenue of Honour, $1.5m, which is the important connection between the end of the mall and the
Smith Street bridge link celebrating Darwin’s cultural and heritage history.
The community infrastructure Stage 1 is due for completion by December 2006. The consortium will design and construct the community infrastructure. The Territory’s payments will be staged in line with the planning and construction timetable. Ownership of the community infrastructure will transfer to the Territory on completion. The Territory will establish a statutory authority to manage the public domain aspects of the site. The cost of community infrastructure Stage 1 in real prices is $91m, an 8% discount rate as of 1 July 2005. A letter of credit with a face value of $97.1m is being held as security until the work is competed. This provides excellent security for the Territory.
Stage 2 infrastructure of approximately $63m, including a lock, roads and services, and other public infrastructure such as parks and heritage links, is the responsibility of the Stage 2 developer. The Territory retains ownership of Stage 2 land until individual parcels are sold direct to residential purchasers. This, again, provides excellent security for the Territory.
I should add that, while the government’s budget will go into deficit for a time to assist with the financing of government’s contribution to the project, budget balance will be restored by 2008-09.
An important part of this project is property returns to the government. The Territory will share in the property returns from the development of all stages as they occur. The Territory decided to share in the increasing uplift in the value of its land over time as the property is developed, rather than selling the unimproved land to the consortium. The Australian Valuation Office provided a valuation of the waterfront land to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment at about $26m in today’s dollars, based upon a convention centre and the associated commercial development of 1200 residential units. In comparison, the property returns to government from this arrangement are estimated at $191m nominal prices, or $62m in real prices at 1 July 2005, using a 15% discount rate. Using a 10% discount rate, the return to government is estimated at $88m.
It is notable that the recorded number of sales of residential units and apartments for the 2004-05 financial year has outstripped recorded housing sales for the first time, and that the median unit price for Darwin overall increased by 6.6%. Therefore, it may be anticipated that property returns to government will be higher than those reported here; that is, the returns in nominal values could be well over $200m by the end of the project.
Property returns to the Territory are: in Stage 1, 10% of gross commercial sales to the developer and 12% gross residential sales, with the estimated return to government being $10.4m; in Stage 2, 10% of gross commercial sales to the developer and 18% of gross residential sales, with the estimated return to government being $180.8m. Independent advice is that Stage 1 returns compare favourably with equivalent government arrangements elsewhere in Australia, where returns are generally in the 11% to 15% of gross residential sales. For Stage 2, where the great bulk of sales will occur, the returns compare well, being very comfortably above the national market average. Importantly, the Territory return under both Stages 1 and 2 is not a problematic assessment of profit but, rather, is related to gross sales by way of a fixed percentage of the final sales price including land and buildings, to ensure the Territory shares in the increasing value of the development over the next 15 years. The developer receives the balance of the proceeds of the sale after Territory receipts, subject to an allowance for GST and other tax payable.
Madam Speaker, under the Territory’s policy dealing with public private partnership arrangements, a public sector comparator is required to be developed for assessment against offers from the marketplace. The financial arrangement stands up well against an equivalent project if it were to be undertaken by government. That is, the nett present cost to government for the transaction is estimated at $144m in today’s values made up of $115m for the convention centre and $91m for the community infrastructure Stage 1, less $62m for the property returns at a 15% discount rate, or less $88m at 10% discount rate for the property returns, giving a nett cost of $118m. Adding an allowance for Territory management costs of $6m to the more conservative figure of $144m, to ensure equivalency of cost components with the public sector comparator, brings this amount to $150m. The public sector comparator costed on an equivalent basis, and again in today’s dollars but a lower discount rate, is estimated at $281m.
The analysis shows that a significantly better financial outcome is achieved for the Territory through an arrangement with the private sector. This comparison does not take into account the related economic benefits that the project will deliver through direct investment by the consortium over and above the benefits associated with the Territory’s own financial investment.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you mind if we just recognise these young people in the gallery?
Ms MARTIN: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Katherine School of the Air accompanied by Ms Jodi Hart; and Year 4 students from Katherine South Primary School accompanied by Christine Sutherland and Steven Shepherd.
On behalf of all honourable members I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and though you are here for some very technical aspect of what is involved in this waterfront development, I am sure you will share the excitement of what we are going to be doing here in Darwin. From a Katherine point of view, it is not far up the track to go. I hope in a couple of years’ time you will certainly enjoy our wave pool.
Back to the technicalities of the public sector comparator: these benefits not taken account of include, but are not limited to, $7m in public art investment by the consortium and $63m invested by the consortium in community infrastructure in Stage 2. This provides further substantiation for the government’s decision to proceed with the transaction.
Private sector contributions to the project: the private sector development includes hospitality, residential Stage 1 and residential Stage 2 components, and public infrastructure. Hospitality includes a Medina Grand apartment hotel of 141 rooms; a signature restaurant; provision for a possible further accommodation facility; and some associated commercial activities with 1% of construction cost in public art, and project completion in 2008. Residential Stage 1 comprises 138 apartments; 1% of construction cost in public art; a mixed-use commercial and retail component including restaurants, alfresco dining opportunities; and property returns to the Territory upon sale of property based on percentage of gross price. Residential Stage 2, incorporating community infrastructure Stage 2, includes 1302 apartments; 1% of construction cost in public art; a mixed-use commercial and retail component similar to that in Stage 1; and property returns to the Territory upon gross sale price. Community infrastructure Stage 2 of $63m and paid by the developer includes a lock, foreshore promenades, public access in and around the private elements, Goyder’s Park, heritage trails, and Stokes Hill foreshore park.
Importantly, all basic infrastructure such as roads, power, water and sewer are to be provided by, in Stage 2, the private sector. It is expected full site development will occur over 15 years with the final sunset date for completion of the development being 2020.
In the interests of providing as comprehensive a statement as possible it is worth noting other costs considerations that are a normal part of government providing major project incentives for significant projects that will make an important contribution to the Territory’s economy. These may be generally described as the transaction costs associated with the project. There is the statutory corporation and the establishment cost for such a corporation is estimated to be in the order of $1m, including chief executive, financial manager, precinct promotions, office manager, administrative support, consultants, legal advice, and other office costs.
The statutory corporation is intended to break even, in cost revenue terms, over time. The statutory corporation will charge rates in similar fashion to that of Darwin City Council and will carry out local government responsibilities including roads, drainage and public utility services; maintenance of the quality of the water; foreshore maintenance; marine structures, including maintenance of the seawall and water quality within the contained water body; landscaping and maintenance of the public areas; public toilet facilities; and rubbish removal from the public domain. Subject to commercial outcomes, the corporation may also operate the facilities within the water recreation area. The corporation will have the ability to charge a premium on Darwin City Council rates of up to 20% higher to ensure any higher amenity demands are met while balancing its books over time.
Another aspect is decontamination payments. The Territory has accepted responsibility for the management and clean-up as required under the environmental management framework for pre-existing contamination. Decontamination costs are budgeted at $1m in 2005-06. Further costs will be quantified over time, but are anticipated to be in the order of $10m in total. The key point is that the Territory has direct control and management of these costs, and the recent completion of the Remediation Action Plan addressing the requirements of the independent environmental auditor now provides the scope of works required and enables decontamination to proceed in line with the staged development of the site.
Other costs include consultant costs, the costs of undertaking environmental studies, demolition and removal costs, the Territory payment for unsuccessful bidders costs, and the headwork costs, which include roads, power, water and sewerage. I reiterate that these costs are offset by, among other benefits, $7m in public art contributions and $63m in community infrastructure investment by the consortium.
There are a number of other matters on which I would like to briefly touch in relation to the project. First, project documentation and risk allocation: five key project documents were entered into by the Territory with the consortium partners, including the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre Concession Deed, a Community Infrastructure Project Delivery Deed, a Hospitality Development Project Delivery Deed, a Residential Development Project Delivery Deed, and the Stage 2 Project Delivery Deed.
Principal risk allocation is as follows:
for the convention centre, the public private partnership principle has been applied such that risks
are allocated to parties best able to manage them;
private sector risks include such matters as construction risk - design, time, cost - and asset
maintenance. Shared risks include delegate numbers. The Territory risks include native title,
decontamination and unexploded ordnance risks.
similar risk allocations apply for the community infrastructure Stage 1. That is, construction risk
rests with the consortium and the native title, decontamination, unexploded ordnance risks rest
with the Territory; and
for the residential and related private developments, the consortium will take construction and
maintenance risks, with shared risks being gross revenue from the property sales. The Territory
will take the risk for native title and unexploded ordnance.
Some other important considerations: the Development Consent Authority will continue to play a significant role in the planning and approval process throughout the development of the project. In recognition of the importance of the role of the Darwin City Council, the government has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the council. The memorandum deals with interface issues between the precinct with Darwin City Council’s municipal boundary, including such important connections as the Avenue of Honour, connecting, as it will, the precinct with the mall.
Environmental provisions have been extensively covered in previous statements to this Assembly.
In terms of our relationship with Defence, I am pleased to report to the Assembly that constructive discussions are ongoing. There has been considerable consultation between the Territory and Defence over a period of some two years, and extensive information has been provided to fully brief Defence on the details of the project. This has involved a number of meetings between officers. In addition to meetings between officers, Defence representatives attended detailed briefings during the public consultation on environmental assessment matters. A special briefing was also arranged on the overall project. In particular, a briefing on Stage 1 was provided by the Executive Director of ABN AMRO representing the Darwin Cove Consortium following their announcement as preferred proponent.
Extensive documentation has been available to Defence directly and through the project web site, including draft environmental impact statement, environmental assessment report and various consultants’ reports. The Northern Territory has forwarded extensive documents to Defence in relation to the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment and the various Development Consent applications. I had constructive discussions with the Prime Minister in April about Defence considerations. I am encouraged by these discussions and subsequent ones between the head of the Department of Defence and the head of my department, and am confident that ongoing matters of concern in relation to the use of the port by Defence can be settled in a manner acceptable to both our governments.
The key advisors to the Northern Territory have endorsed this project as representing value for money for the Territory with the risk to government within acceptable and responsible bounds for a project of this type.
I will now outline the progress since 9 May of this year. The consortium members have been diligently progressing design for both the convention and exhibition centre and the community infrastructure components. The public domain elements are to be delivered under separate development permits for marine and community infrastructure components. In the period since financial close, the community infrastructure developer has been occupied in the preparation of construction and environmental management plans addressing the requirements of the Development Consent Authority which must be met prior to commencement of construction activity.
As a necessary precursor to the commencement of full-scale dredging activities, a pond to contain the dredge sediments has been created by the construction of a bund within the reclamation area at East Arm. Removal of metalliferous objects, including possible war debris identified by magnetometer survey, is expected to commence later this week. When design development of the convention and exhibition centre has been progressed sufficiently, tender packages will be prepared to enable local subcontractors and suppliers to compete for work consistent with the terms of the Local Industry Participation Plan.
I would like now to address the probity issues. In addition to Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice, that firm also provided advice on probity issues as part of their legal brief. This work included advising the Territory on changes to the composition of the consortium, any issues of concern with the tender process that inevitably arise in projects of this complexity; and other matters dealing with project documentation and treatment of intellectual property on a confidential basis. Mallesons Stephen Jaques concluded that, considering these issues among others, the Northern Territory was entitled to enter into the project documentation and the process of selection was sound.
The government also appointed a probity auditor to act as an independent agent on the process. Any party might seek advice from, or refer matters to, the auditor for inquiry and receive a response from the probity auditor. Once again, this process is standard procedure for projects of this complexity. The probity auditor appointed was the Darwin office of Ernst & Young, with that office subsequently, during the course of the submission and selection process, becoming Merit Partners with the withdrawal of Ernst & Young from the Darwin market. Merit Partners, nevertheless, retains an association with Ernst & Young.
In addition, a further probity auditor, that of Deloitte Touche Tomatsu, was appointed during an interactive bidding process with the three short-listed consortia in June and July of 2004. At a number of points during this time, the probity auditor received confirmation from each of the short-listed bidders that they had no issue in respect to the process. Neither the probity auditor, nor the probity auditors, have raised any issues of concern in relation to the process.
The Northern Territory has received releases from each unsuccessful bidder from entering into any claims against the Northern Territory as part of their bid process, and transferring the intellectual property of their respective bids to the government. This is normal prudent practice by the government. In turn, the government has paid the Territory payment to one losing consortium, and has before it a recommendation to pay the Territory payment to the other party, which I expect to be acted upon.
To conclude, this is a project for all Territorians to celebrate. It will deliver considerable stimulus to the Northern Territory economy. In summary, the nett cost to government from this development, taking into account payments for the convention centre and community infrastructure Stage 1, and allowing for property returns, is estimated at between $118m and $144m in today’s dollars. For this outlay, the Northern Territory will get an iconic convention centre that we can all be proud of; significant community infrastructure valued around $160m, just under 40% of which is privately-funded; a magnificent waterfront precinct which will be accessible to all; and a $1.1bn development project overall, the great bulk of which will be privately funded and will drive a key sector of the Northern Territory economy for a decade or more.
I should add that the Auditor-General has been given a thorough briefing on all matters pertinent to his responsibility in relation to the project. He has made his own report to this Assembly, and it is pleasing to note that his report supports the opinion of the probity advisers and probity auditors, as I have previously noted.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the team who played the principal role in putting the project together, led by Paul Tyrrell, Chief Executive of my department, and including Pat Coleman as the Project Director, Terry O’Neill as Technical Director, Alastair Shields from the Department of Justice, Linda Mackenzie from Treasury, Brendan Lawson from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and Larry Bannister from my department. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, in particular, played an important supporting role to the team, as did advisers including Mallesons Stephen Jaques, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Merit Partners.
I look forward to the time, in about a decade from now, when I can walk the promenade looking back on the precinct with the city centre in the background, knowing we have a world-class convention centre and civic space to be proud of. I foresee a flourishing precinct that is owned by the people of Darwin, and where up to 2500 will live. Some of this will become evident even earlier, in 2008, when Stage 1 is completed as a self-contained and completed stage in itself.
With much pride and many thanks to all those involved, I commend the statement to the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her statement.
Before getting into the body of the statement, the opposition understands that we need to have a briefing, and we will be doing that. We have attempted to get one, but the coordination of public servants as well as the opposition has been difficult, and there were some illnesses along the way. I make that point because I well understand the need for us to receive a briefing on this project; it is completely appropriate that we do so.
I make the point, though, that there is a contribution we can make to this statement based on what we do know so far. The third reason I raise that point is that, throughout my contribution, I would be grateful if members opposite would spare me what is likely to be the inevitable interjection of ‘Get a briefing, get a briefing’. Having said that regarding those matters, I happily embark on my contribution.
It needs to be said that the CLP supports this proposal. I will say again: the CLP opposition supports this project. The opposition realises just how important this project is to the future of both Darwin and the Northern Territory. The CLP understands that our community is built on small business employment, and that this project is crucial to Darwin and the Territory. That is why the CLP proposed this project, and started planning it, some years ago. Therefore, I say again: the CLP is supportive of this project. To argue that the sky is not blue but, in fact, red, is just absurd. Although I understand the political motivation for them doing it, I wish that members of the government would at least be honest with us when we are debating this issue. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Territory families will rely on work from this project and, consequently, that is one of the prime reasons for our support of it.
However, Chief Minister, let me make some things equally clear. The opposition’s support does not extend to blind, unquestioning faith in your government’s ability to manage this project properly. We are well paid for the job we do, and we intend to do it whether you like it or not. We are sorry that we will be asking questions in relation to this project, but we are duty bound to do so.
The Darwin waterfront and convention centre development is a complex beast, and the opposition intends offering as much bipartisan support to the project as we can. Nevertheless, there are issues where the government and, in particular, the Chief Minister, is failing the people of the Territory. The Chief Minister has told Territorians of the huge positive employment effect this project will have and, in that regard, I quote the Chief Minister as follows:
The Chief Minister said local content component was 85%. She said it in a media release only a few months ago and also in the speech today. However, we asked the Chief Minister what she says to Territorians about all of the design work for this project being carried out interstate. No doubt, the Chief Minister will say that local firms have the contracts. However, can the Chief Minister tell us whether these local firms are actually doing the work in Darwin? My understanding is that these firms are actually having the work done in their interstate offices. That does not translate to local employment. Can the Chief Minister assure the businesses of the Territory that the joint venturers will ensure that the waterfront work will be carried out in Darwin - and please, do not confuse that with carrying out work in the interstate offices of firms which also happen to have a presence in Darwin? Can the Chief Minister tell us just how many firms contracted to these project are doing all of the work relating to their contracts using Territorians and within the Northern Territory?
However, this is not the end of this particular aspect which was described today, yesterday, and in the last week or so, as this government’s duplicity towards local businesses, their employees and their families. The reasons for this will emerge shortly, but I am sure government is already on to where I am coming from.
The government is actively working to disadvantage firms which have a proud and long history with the Territory. What does the Chief Minister say to those Darwin firms involved in the mechanical - yes, the airconditioning and ventilation aspect - of this project? The government has unashamedly handed out those contracts to interstate firms. I wonder what the Chief Minister would say to those people employed in these local industries. Or is it the case that perhaps government does not care about them in the way that they have indicated?
Of course, Chief Minister, of the firms that government has chosen for this work, some of them do not have a presence in Darwin. Nevertheless, you would be aware of how important subcontractors are to every local economy. ‘Will we see you subject them to the same duplicity?’, it was asked of me from a business person this morning. Will we see you say to them and their families, their wives and their children, that most subcontractual works will go interstate? We ask whether the Chief Minister and the government really understands how important it is to the Territory that the waterfront industry be kept local.
Further to that, I understand that all the design work for the business and innovation building in the Alice Desert Knowledge Project has recently been let to a team in which all of the structural, civil, mechanical and plumbing design will be carried out by firms with no presence in the Northern Territory. Perhaps the Chief Minister could comment on that in her reply.
I would ask that in her reply, the Chief Minister not give us the line that the projects are too big for our local firms. Our excellent local businesses were more than capable of successfully completing all of the work at Robertson Barracks, Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and, indeed, Parliament House and the Supreme Court. In fact, they are up to the job and the prices are competitive.
Most of the purchasing of the gas plant and, certainly the railway, was done directly interstate. The information I am receiving is that your business policy is, however, adversely affecting our local businesses. Chief Minister, will you advise Territorians whether those 1000 jobs that you say will be generated by the waterfront proposal will be on a fly-in/fly-out basis? Surely it is not too hard for your minister to organise the various locally-based subcontractor groups into, perhaps, a joint venture and then encourage the joint venturers to put work their way.
When the member for Wanguri was Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, he had the gall to produce a specific policy entitled Building the Northern Territory Industry Participation. I remind you of the objectives of that fine sounding policy:
The member for Wanguri - that is the one who has designs on your job, Chief Minister - specifically says in that policy of his that he will promote the use of local services and supplies. Chief Minister, you announced in that media release that the Territory government is going to provide financial support to the tune of $102.85m for the design and construction of the waterfront project. It is time, we say, and indeed others say, that you made sure that as much of that money as possible stays within the Territory for Territory families.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, would you mind if we just paused a moment to recognise these young people?
Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 8 students from St John’s College accompanied by Ms Kerrie O’Connor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Chief Minister, when will you be honest with Territorians and tell them the true value of the government’s commitment to this project? The real value of the rezoned land that has been given to this project has never publicly been divulged and it is substantially more than the value before rezoning.
I know the Chief Minister says that we will make $88m or thereabouts on the deal, but one question she has not answered is how much is the Valuer-General’s valuation of the rezoned land. You know that this has been asked before and you steadfastly refuse to answer it.
However, in the event that you do eventually answer this question in an honest, up-front way, it may be that the answer is substantially more money than the money that you have attached to it. If that is the case, the Territory taxpayer is the loser. That is the very question that the Chief Minister has repeatedly refused to answer.
Another question that, obviously, needs to be raised in the context of our discussion about the waterfront proposal is: how much will the environmental clean-up cost be? What will the cost be if you encounter unexploded ordnance from World War II, for instance? Your department continues to change plans to suit the consortium. The loss of the marina and the suggestion that the lock will be retrofitted - that means it is years away - shows that your government is yielding to every consortium demand at the expense of one consortium partner, the taxpayer - Territorians.
Chief Minister, the Darwin City Council has rejected ownership of the wave pool. Just who will own that asset?
You said in your statement that you have ongoing discussions with Defence. When will the relevant issues be resolved? We note that you made no mention of an end point to those discussions.
Madam Speaker, one of the major participants in the convention centre from day one has been a Territory firm, Airductor. This long-time Territory firm has built up its infrastructure to perform up to the standard that was expected of it. This included buying equipment and employing staff. Now, this Territory company has learned from one of its own contractors that it is no longer involved as expected. I understand lives have been planned around this project and that the firm had a reasonable expectation that it would participate. Now, Airductor has found out that a Brisbane firm, AE Smith, has been awarded the contract. Make no mistake, the airconditioning component of the waterfront project is huge and we are not talking about a few split systems. This local firm and its employees and their families are, I am advised, devastated. I further understand that the company is facing substantial financial loss as a result.
The government has let down the local business community. We, on this side of the House, do not understand why they are treating local families like this. We know how much these sorts of things can hurt local businesses as well as the human beings behind them. We ask whether the Chief Minister cares.
In conclusion, the opposition supports the waterfront and the convention centre development. No member of government should come into this Chamber and peddle the rubbish, the garbage, that the CLP does not support it. That is wrong. Every time you say it, we will have a go at you. I have said it repeatedly, and let me say it one more time: the CLP supports this project. That is why the CLP proposed it, that is why the CLP started it, and if you do not believe me …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … we have some earlier plans upstairs in the Leader of the Opposition’s office and I can show them to you if you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: So do not come in here and say we opposed it, we never had any idea. Absolute rubbish! To peddle lies like that you should all be condemned.
Madam Speaker, once again - and it happened last week and none of them should be poker players - I always know when I am on a good thing because they get noisy. They all start to twitch and they jump up and down, and they move in ways that they do not usually move.
Let me say it again: the CLP supports the waterfront project; that is because it was the CLP’s idea. We are delighted that the Labor government has picked it up and is having a go. However, as I said, we are well paid for the job we do and we, whether you like it or not, intend to fulfil our duty. All we ask in return is that, if we are fulfilling our duty to Territorians, you fulfil yours.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister in this statement today. I am also pleased to note, once and for all in a fairly unequivocal fashion, the Leader of the Opposition has stated support for this project. Mind you, she does it in a rather strange way. No sooner than having committed opposition support to the project, she then unleashes 30 minutes of venom and vindictive allegations against the project, most of which I believe will be put to rest when my colleague, the minister responsible for infrastructure and planning, rises to his feet. The next thing we will be told by the Country Liberal Party opposition is that it was their idea to roll out secondary education into remote indigenous communities. Nothing would surprise me.
We know that they had a convention centre of sorts on the books. Why else would did they pull down that beautiful building? Why else did they ruin the face of Darwin by destroying one of the great buildings of this city, the Hotel Darwin, and turn it into a car park? That is where the CLP convention centre was - a dirty, dusty car park when we came to government. It costs you $2 to park your car there in place of what was one of our finest buildings that ought to have been preserved. That was the CLP’s convention centre when we came to government in August 2001.
However, I do not want to concentrate on the negatives; I want to concentrate on the positives of this project. This project will be the signature of Darwin. It will transform this city in a way that few other projects might. It will deliver a statement to the rest of this country and, indeed, the world, about the dynamism of this young capital city, and it will add another feature to tourism and business visitation to this centre.
Much of that attraction goes in an around the design of the convention centre itself, because it will make this building one of the most recognisable buildings of northern Australia. It will represent both a tropical and a northern Australian image to our own nation and to the world at large, in a similar way, I would hope, that the Sydney Opera House represents Australia and Sydney to the world and represents the pre-eminence of Sydney as the centre of cultural change through its time. So too, in time, the Darwin convention centre and exhibition complex will be reflective of us and our city.
It also reflects the dynamics of the city, as I said. Certainly, since we came to office, we have spent considerable time and energy bringing to fruition the legislative reworking of our planning system. We have put in place a government architect and we are now seeing the reflection of the government’s commitments to all of the dynamic elements of our community. The waterfront reflects open space and establishes a clear green belt. It reflects a mixed mode of space and density. It draws on our history but, at the same time, defines our future and a similar thinking to that which has gone into the establishment of the planning scheme for the Myilly Point headland - open space, green, practical density, and a reflection of our statement as a community.
The waterfront project will put in place a construction program that will be spread over the best part of a decade-and-a-half. It will provide work in the construction industry for a considerable period of time, allowing decent planning by business and some evening out of the boom/bust cycle that we have witnessed for many years in the Northern Territory. A project like this can be built, and will be built, in such a way as to maximise and promote the use of apprentices and trainees to allow us to continue a pursuit of that strong training agenda which we have and which, of course, will benefit the Territory and Australia for many years to come.
As the Chief Minister said, a minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry, with $250m going into the local economy over the next three years alone. That, combined with projects such as the removal of the tank farm, the development of Lyons, the ongoing development of Darwin, and major industrial infrastructure projects, means our construction industry does have a bright future in the Territory. Of course, that means the Territory economy shares the brightness of that future, because the construction industry is a significant driver of the Territory economy.
The Chief Minister has described the government’s financial commitment to the project. It is a commitment that has come about after much careful thought and negotiation. I congratulate all those involved. The Chief Minister has described how the commitment is limited and contains maximum amounts so it ensures that the government’s interests are protected. I will not restate the situation beyond saying that the government is happy that the arrangement will protect the Territory’s interest, while providing to the Territory infrastructure to deliver solid economic growth.
Given the significant benefits of this project, both in direct and indirect terms, both short term and longer term, I was astounded, as were my colleagues, when the CLP rejected the project at the last election …
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Dr Lim: That is not true; read …
Mr Henderson: You said you would scrap it.
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Mr STIRLING: You said you would scrap it. You said you would scrap the project.
Dr Lim: That is a lie.
Mr Henderson: Bring in the quotes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: They can say what they like; they said they would scrap it at the last election. That is why I am pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition this morning say: ‘Let me state that I support this project, but …’ and there are 15 or 20 ‘buts’ after that. Nonetheless, that opposition mentality to the project may be dissipating and that is good; if the opposition does get behind this project and supports it in the way that this side of the House, when in opposition, fully supported the railway.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the statement and, indeed, proud to support the project.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, as minister for business, economic and regional development, I am a very proud supporter of this waterfront project. As the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister have said, it is really going to be a defining signature for this wonderful capital city of ours and, certainly, a great return on investment for the dollars that the taxpayer is putting in.
I am aghast at the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking, supposedly, in support of this statement. It is good to see that, finally, after a couple of years of debate about this particular project in this House as proceedings have been worked through, the opposition has agreed to ask for a comprehensive briefing on that project. It is a move forward in opposition members trying to get their head across the complexities of this particular project - even identifying, in her first couple of paragraphs in support of this statement, that they needed a briefing - that it was a very complex financial and commercial structure put in place to support this public private partnership.
The Leader of the Opposition then proceeded, in total ignorance of the facts, to make a series of wild allegations in regard to the details of this project. You cannot come in here and say: ‘Look, it is great, I support the project in concept; we do need a briefing because it is difficult’, and then make a whole heap of totally unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations about the project. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, in trying to say you support the project and then continuing - as the opposition has done for the last couple of years - to white-ant public confidence in this project every single step of the way. The opposition either supports it or they do not. Before they come out and publicly make statements that have no basis in fact and seek to undermine the confidence in this project - not only ordinary Territorians, but the business community’s confidence in this project - I would urge her to get her facts straight.
Moving towards my support, not only for the project but the statement, there have been few announcements more eagerly awaited by the Darwin business community than that of the government reaching financial close for the Darwin City Waterfront project. Without detracting in any way from the great results settled on in May this year, it has certainly been the case that, for too long, our capital city, the only tropical capital in the nation, has been without a convention centre. While the Top End has been able to cater for the small to medium conference market there have been limitations. The convention centre will extend the business tourism season and, along with the broader waterfront attractions, these features will add sustainable jobs in hospitality, accommodation and tourism generally.
It took the vision, determination, willpower and hard work of the Martin government to make this happen. No previous government came close to doing so. For the opposition to say: ‘We would have done it’, again, they are bringing their plans down here because, in those plans that you had for the waterfront there was no convention centre. The vast amount of public space was a car park and no real substantial progress was made in doing anything at all down there. The opposition was very mute. Well, they were not mute - they were hostile.
They were originally hostile when the government came out and said that we would be siting the convention centre at the waterfront. Hansard and press clippings are full of public statements at the time that that would be the worst place to build the convention centre; the convention centre should be built up in the CBD somewhere. The then Leader of the Opposition trotted out a couple of sites. One of their mates was out there running the line that the convention centre had to be in town, it had to be next to particular sectional interests in terms of their property holdings in town. The opposition was all over the public record saying the last place that they would put the convention centre was at the waterfront. It is good to see that they now have a change of heart.
The government set out two years ago to use its offer of $100m to draw in private sector interest to work in partnership on the redevelopment of the waterfront, utilising the convention centre as the centrepiece of the project to fire interest in what will be a world-class development. I remind honourable members that this site is, essentially, a degraded, no-go industrial area, currently with just a small strip of people-friendly development around Stokes Hill Wharf. The site will be transformed into a superb waterfront development unlike any other, but rivalling the best of them. It will be a precinct to which we can take our kids, in which we will enjoy the company of friends, where people can get married, and which will attract many people from all parts of the world.
Amongst our great attributes are our aspirations and the strength of commitment to follow through to see these aspirations become reality. This project is a demonstration of these attributes. It will re-position Darwin on the map nationally and globally. This development offers the best of both worlds. For a nett outlay of $144m in today’s terms, the government gets an iconic international convention and exhibition centre together with community infrastructure on waterfront access valued around $160m. It gets an overall development project worth $1.1bn to provide a stable work base for the construction sector to grow from, thereby creating and producing sustainable jobs and wealth opportunities for the next decade at least. No wonder the business community and Darwin people have got behind this project. It is a further demonstration of the way we as a government do business.
Primacy of place for economic development and job creation must stay with the private sector. This is where the rigours of the marketplace will ensure we provide lasting opportunities for Territorians. It is the private sector that provides the jobs, capital and surpluses that lead to further investments being made. The government can facilitate this approach and will continue to do so through strategic interventions like the provision of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre. But to meet our ambitious social policies ensuring access to opportunities for all, we need well grounded, economic development provided by major projects like the waterfront.
I am delighted to be part of achieving this dream. I have taken a close interest in the project and, as the newly appointed minister for business, economic and regional development, I will continue to do so as it develops, particularly in Stage 1 being completed by 2008. I also want to make my own commitment to the next economic development strategy for the Martin government. I, and my department, will take a lead role in this work. The waterfront is not just bricks and mortar alone. Its symbolism for the Top End is powerful. It is the flagship of the broader objectives I want to set down for our future development.
At base, it starts with providing a safe and secure community for our people. The fundamental objective is joined by the provision of sustainable commercial opportunities affecting the quality of our lives, those of our families and our neighbours, be they living in Darwin or the bush.
Neither safe communities nor commercial opportunities will last unless we also build cohesive neighbourhoods where people from disparate parts and cultures can collectively grasp a high sense of place and embrace a sense of pride of place. This requires attention to cultural and social considerations, recognising their importance in strengthening the fabric of society in bringing a sense of unity to the people and thereby underpinning long-term economic development. The waterfront development will do this. It is not just a $1.1bn project alone, although that in itself is impressive.
Allow me to give a personal vision of how I would like our city to look in 20 years from now, much of which will turn on the waterfront project. It is about linking the Botanic Gardens to the north of the city with a premier waterfront to the south, which itself will be enshrouded by deep shade. The natural pathways between either point will be via our magnificent Esplanade and Bicentennial Park to the west, and the soon to commence residential development to the east where the fuel tank farm now stands, but whose decommissioning is imminent. Encircling these features on three sides is our magnificent harbour. In pride of place at the centre of all of this is the central business district. The development will re-energise our city centre by becoming a drawcard for locals and visitors alike.
It is now the time for there to be confidence in investing in the heart of Darwin like no other period in our history. There is no doubt for a city of some 100 000 people, we have a city heart to be proud of with an outstanding future reflective of the opportunities that lie ahead. I am sure that the waterfront will inject new and additional levels of confidence in the CBD, some evidence of which we can already see.
The waterfront is not separate from the city, but an integral part of it. The statutory corporation managing the public domain elements of the precinct will ensure marketing and promotion is coordinated with promotions more broadly for the city of Darwin. The Avenue of Honour will be the premier link to the mall from the waterfront. It will be designed to recognise those people who have made a significant contribution to our city, be they indigenous, entrepreneurial, political, or those who have defended or rebuilt Darwin. The avenue will encourage pedestrians to move freely between the quarters, vital for the economic life of the retail and hospitality sectors.
Darwin City Council has engaged urban designers Hassell to provide a development plan for the mall. This group, led by Ken Maher, has an exceptional record of achievement here and abroad. It is the same group responsible for the design of both the waterfront precinct and the Avenue of Honour link between the precinct and the mall. Some of Hassell’s work includes the Qantas domestic terminal and Olympic Park Train Station in Sydney, Waterfront City as part of Docklands Melbourne, and the Yangpu Knowledge and Innovation Community in Shanghai among many other notable achievements.
In short, we have a unique opportunity to work with local enterprise, the consortium and the Darwin City Council to ensure an overall plan for significant parts of the city is produced in a considered and creative manner. I would like to see a partnership of government, council and private landowners in the city to contribute their time and resources in a collaborative venture that will see substantial landscaping of the entire city peninsula, making it a pleasant and comfortable CBD to stroll throughout. Public art and heritage in the waterfront precinct will add to the attractions to that place and, again, these themes can be extended through the Avenue of Honour to the rest of the city.
Cultural attractions, too, are very important to ensure the balance between personal privacy and a thriving, publicly accessible precinct is maintained. In this regard, an indigenous cultural centre supplemented by the contribution that other cultures have made to Darwin’s development would be a wonderful attractor. Local industry participation and job opportunities will be significant despite the doomsayers opposite: around 1000 direct jobs in construction and 200 jobs in operation.
I would like to congratulate these local firms which are already directly associated with the consortium, including: the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture; Macmahons NT, which, as we all know, was formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell, formerly known as Spowers Architects; Connell Mott McDonald; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt; and Knight Frank.
I urge the opposition, if you do not believe that there are going to be substantial economic benefits and return on investment, go and knock on doors. There are seven companies I have named. Talk to them and ask them what they believe these contracts will mean to their business here in Darwin. I am sure you will get a very positive response. This project will be a shot in the arm for the Territory’s construction sector. Talk to John Baker of the TCA and ask him what he thinks this project will do for the construction industry in Darwin. Have a chat to him. I am sure he would love to talk to you, and I am sure he will be very positive about this project as he has been publicly.
The project will be a shot in the arm for the Northern Territory’s construction sector, with up to $1bn in development activity being pumped into the Northern Territory economy over the next 10 to 15 years. Ongoing operations of the world-class tourism, business, recreational and residential precinct will continue to inject significant opportunities into the Northern Territory economy on an ongoing basis. A minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry.
In Stage 1 of the project delivering the Darwin convention and exhibition centre operated by Ogden IFC, the apartment hotel operated by the Medina Apartment Group and significant community infrastructure together with some small retail and commercial space, there is estimated to be about $250m in local expenditure. Each of these component parts will have a local industry participation plan, contracting 85% for local employment and the sourcing of goods and services, and containing warrantable commitments, such as an establishment of indigenous scholarships, undertaking economic studies, establishing local offices where these have not already been established, and implementing employment and training plans. Similar arrangements will apply for the operations phase of the convention centre.
The economic stimulation to the CBD will be considerable, drawing residents and visitors alike back to Darwin’s heart through a significant enhancement of the peninsula’s built form and landscaping. The project will provide a real and sustained boost for all those associated with the provision of goods and services in Darwin, Berrimah and Palmerston. Once up and running, the precinct will provide a wealth of jobs in the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors and offer great opportunities to many Territorians.
On Defence considerations, these matters are important to me, with Defence Support being one of my portfolio responsibilities. They are vitally important to the small business owners and operators of Darwin, particularly those on the peninsula. Defence discussions have been frequent over the last two years, ranging from fuel use of the Iron Ore Wharf; for secure berthing and bulk fuel discharge, through to port access issues generally; groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of Defence fuel storage facilities and related infrastructure and port security requirements.
Ongoing consultations with Defence continue. I have a clear interest in ensuring these consultations are conducted constructively and conclude successfully. I give that assurance to the growing number of local industries which are allied to, and demonstrate increasing dependence on, the Defence sector. I am confident that the number of Naval and cruise ship visits will be maintained and grow as the waterfront development proceeds.
In regard to the latter, the government is committed to the provision of a cruise ship facility. The facility was originally proposed as a separate project to be located at Fort Hill Wharf outside the Darwin City Waterfront redevelopment site. Last year, the government undertook a scoping study and, following a decision to include the cruise ship facility as part of the waterfront development, identified the optimum first stage would cost in the order of $4.5m. Accordingly, agreement has been reached with the consortium to include design and construction of the first stage of the facility as part of the waterfront project.
To conclude, there can be no better way for the Northern Territory to position itself for the start of the new century than with this project. We need to identify and build on our comparative advantages and, through this, diversify the economic base of the economy. Our economy has been characterised by boom/bust cycles for much of the last 100 years. The reality is that growth will continue to be volatile for some time to come, but the waterfront project will moderate this volatility, putting a stable and sustainable base under our economy.
Our potential lies in the Northern Territory’s dominant location in northern Australia’s development; development that will drive the Australian economy as we move increasingly into the 21st century. Darwin, in particular, holds a commanding position in northern Australia and the near international region; a position to be exploited. The convention centre will assist in this process. I am confident it will be a major stimulant to improve air services into the Top End, particularly international services, and that must be good for business; and a major stimulant to more hotels, improving the occupancy rate through the hospitality sector and extending the trading season. After all, Darwin is at its best from January to March and, with a convention centre and waterfront, we will at last be able to draw people to the city at this beautiful time of year, marketing the Top End as a year-round destination for business tourism. It really is very exciting, and I just cannot wait for the convention centre to open.
We can see, despite of the negativity of the Leader of the Opposition, extraordinary confidence returning to the Territory economy. People can certainly see it. Real estate is one of the key barometers of any economy as people seek to position themselves for the growth that they know is going to come. The NT News had this publication inserted in it just a few days ago. It is the Real Estate Local Market Analysis from the real estate industry, June 2005 quarter ‘Oh, what a year. The 2004 financial year breaks new ground’. This is the confidence that is in the marketplace; the confidence that is out there where the Territory is heading. This is not government hype, or media spin; this is confidence from not only Territorians but people from interstate and overseas investing in the Northern Territory. That is because we are going places. The convention centre and waterfront development is part of the confidence that is in the market at the moment and is continuing to grow.
For the opposition to still be trying to preach doom and gloom and that, somehow, we are not going to achieve – they are out on their own. The market is saying something different. I have a few media releases from business groups. The Chamber of Commerce, 10 May 2005, CEO Graham Poon said:
There are numerous other comments. Again, from Graham Poon on 2 June in the NT News:
NT News, 13 May:
It just goes on and on. We have the Leader of the Opposition in here …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: … I wish she would follow.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of senior citizens from Brennan, Sanderson, Drysdale, Millner and Nightcliff electorates; members of the Chung Wah Society and interstate visitors. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I further draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of three staff from the Underground Power Project in Nightcliff, Mr Ken Frazer, Ms Wendy Jefferies and Mr Michael Wright, who is the consultant with the project. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the waterfront development is one of those projects that certainly appears good for Darwin and the Northern Territory. No doubt, as you have heard in the statement, it is a project from the government’s perspective that is perfect and positive as well as public and private. Straightaway that would worry me because it sounds like something out of the real estate industry sales book on positive phrases, or how to turn a flooded block into your wildlife park - apologies to the member for Port Darwin.
Whilst I am a supporter of developing the waterfront, will the improvement just take all the sweet words, the background music, the glossy brochures, the not-to-be photographed model displayed at Casuarina and what the Chief Minister has said just as gospel and, therefore, without comment? I do not want to be part of the blind leading the blind, but I believe we do need to look at the project and look at it carefully.
The project has invoked words like ‘prestigious, exciting, vibrant, pride, magnificent, celebrate, iconic and significant’, and phrases like ‘exciting new dimension, vibrant space, superbly located, economic stimulation, environmental and civic showpiece, rich cultural past, dynamic presence, promising future, considerable economic outcome, bold and highly attractive, significantly better financial outcome, value for money for the Territory, considerable stimulus, and a flourishing precinct’.
That is why I become a little concerned that it does sound like real estate rhetoric. Therefore, I have brought forward some concerns I have and some expressed to me by others. What was most disappointing at the beginning of this project was the initial removal of the public from the process. The public was not allowed to see the other designs. This made sure they were not involved in the final design for the waterfront that was selected. There were three designs, two of which were rejected, and those two the public were not allowed to see. For me, that was a sad thing for a government which promoted community consultation.
The land on which the redevelopment is to occur belongs to the people; it is the people’s money and the people should have had a fair say in the choice of design. Unfortunately, it was a case of ‘trust me, I am from the government’, and like it or lump it. Then there was the original statement by the government on 11 August 2003 that the project would cost Territorians $100m that will go towards building the convention centre and some other infrastructure headworks such as headworks, land improvement, remediation of contaminated areas, coastal protection and readying the entire site for development. This is where I had some confusion.
However, in today’s statement, the government’s figure is said to be $115m for the convention centre and $91m for the community infrastructure. Whilst the figure for the convention centre now appears to be $115m, is not totally clear in the statement what is included in that $115m. For instance, are the costs of $75m based on a $3m per annum payment over five years for operational support included in that figure?
Ms Martin: Twenty-five years.
Mr WOOD: Twenty-five years, which is $75m. Then there is the community infrastructure Stage 1 where the Chief Minister says there will be a maximum payment of $94.6m for design, construction and finance of this stage. Elsewhere, it says $91m. If you put these figures together, you get roughly $216m. I would like the Chief Minister to explain a little more about those figures.
Chief Minister, if you look in this year’s budget, you will also find government is spending, under the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment $7.3m for Stage 3. I do not know what Stage 3 is but is says Stage 3 in the budget, which is the headworks to the waterfront precinct boundary to enable the developer to service the Darwin convention centre and exhibition centre. That makes the total $233m. The question I ask is: is that figure mentioned in the budget actually the figure of $7.7m you mentioned in your statement for Stage 1? I have some confusion between what the budget says and what the statement says.
If you want to make it even more confusing, there are incentives - unspecified to the owners and operators - and an unavailability payment - which is not explained – of around $12m paid in the first year and subsequent quarterly payments paid on a quarterly basis over the next 25 years. It is, clearly, very difficult from the figures given in this statement, to have a real handle on how much money the government is actually spending on this project. It begs the question: is that deliberate or does not anyone in the government use plain English and plain sums anymore?
There needs to be questions asked about whether all the government expenditure has been accounted for. For instance, does the government believe, when it states $41.8m for the marine works, that it has covered everything? For example, presently the mud is being checked out for unexploded munitions. If there are problems with removing these munitions, is the figure of $41.8m an accurate figure? There is also a certain amount of confusion about how much toxic waste is going to be dumped at Shoal Bay. I will re-phrase that: there was a certain amount of confusion over how much contaminated soil would be composted and treated, and for how long, at the Shoal Bay Recycling Depot …
Ms Martin: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: I thought you would like that. Has this issue been finalised, and what are the costs? They are issues I raised with the Estimates Committee. They are the costs, if they have not been sorted out, that could change, for instance, the figure here of $41.8 for marine works.
The other matter the government should clearly state is: what are the costs that are not shown but are paid for by the government; how many consultants have been employed in the short term or long term; how many lawyers involved in the legal side of things have been employed outside the Department of Justice; how many experts have been brought in from elsewhere and used to give all sorts of advice on other matters to government; how many of these costs are included in these costs highlighted today or have these costs been absorbed by government elsewhere?
The Chief Minister briefly touched on this under the paragraph titled ‘Other costs’. There is no indication of how much the other costs add up to and, if you read what the Chief Minister means when she says, ‘What are the other costs?’ - and I will get to page 18 and it is a short paragraph:
I believe the ‘other costs’ are quite substantial, but have been conveniently glossed over by the next paragraph in the statement:
But, then, not to say what the dollar figure for the other costs is sounds like someone is hiding the real costs. The public wants to know the costs and the benefits, but not one without the other. Therefore, whilst it might be good to hear what would offset the costs, we actually do not have any details of what the other costs would be. Perhaps the headwork costs are what are being referred to in the budget, but I certainly believe that this statement - for someone to look at the total costs that government has spent so far - is lacking, quite poorly. That section ‘other costs’ should have been much clearer and defined exactly how much money was involved.
On top of that, there was a statement that in relation to the convention centre, the owners and operators during the period - that is 25 years - will be provided with incentives to attract national and international delegates. What sort of incentives is the government talking about when it is already contributing $3m per year for operational support? Is the government really telling the whole truth about how much the government is spending on this project, or is it trying to confuse the public with tricky figures and spin, instead of speaking plainly and putting all costs on the table for people to see?
The simple question is: is the cost to the taxpayer $100m as was mentioned in August 2003, $115m as mentioned here, $144m when you take into account – I will get the correct terminology …
Ms Martin: The returns on land value.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the returns on the property, thank you. … $215m when you count up the $115m plus the $96m for community work, or is it closer to $300m?
There are two other concerns that I and, I believe, Territorians have. The first is the amount of residential development within the waterfront. The Chief Minister has not covered this issue in this statement. Whilst, as I said at the beginning, people support the development of the waterfront, I believe many people either want no residential or limited residential development because they reckon the land should be open space. With the government saying this deal is done, there is probably nothing that will change their mind about the density of residential development, but the government should be clear on exactly how many people will reside within the waterfront development.
What is the time line for the construction of the residential area? What effect will it have on residential sales elsewhere in Darwin? Or will residential developments in Darwin like the 33-storey building and - I am not sure whether approved yet – the 26-storey building, make it harder to sell waterfront units? If the government has done the calculations, will they make those available? Are there more details of residential development?
Whilst there have been plans and models shown, it would be good to hear from the Chief Minister more details of the residential development, especially considering that the government is saying the estimates it will receive are $191m nominal price from the property arrangements - such things as when the residential development is to commence; the details of Stage 1 and Stage 2; and what numbers of people the government now expects to reside at the wharf. If sales are not as optimistic as the government has allowed for because of leaner returns in its calculations, what effect will that have on the Chief Minister’s linking the property returns to a budget balance that will be restored by 2008-09?
I must admit I get a little confused after that because we start dealing with issues. I accept the point that one day I will get a briefing. However, they talk about discount rates and public sector comparators. I say that is starting to get into fiscal language, if you are not careful. What are those things about, and how do they relate to the financial success, or otherwise, of this project?
The second matter that is of concern is a lack of proper cost benefit analysis - and I have mentioned this many times before - to show Territorians that if it is $100m or $300m or whatever of their money is spent on this project, there will be a return of X dollars to the community by ways of jobs, tourism, construction, etcetera. The Chief Minister has gone some ways towards this when she says there will be an additional $190m generated in additional tourism, and 1000 jobs in the construction phase and 200 direct jobs. This is all fine, but it is certainly not comprehensive, nor does it give any details on how these figures were calculated, nor does it cover the full range of benefits.
Chief Minister, with the piles of technical reports I have loading my desk regarding the physical infrastructure at the waterfront, it seems amazing that the government does not have a public document showing a cost benefit analysis of the project. Or have we gone down the yellow brick road to the land of development without clearly having before us what the benefits are, in dollar terms, to the community? Surely, those key advisors to the Territory, as you mentioned in your statement, who have endorsed this project as representing value for money, would be able to tell others the details behind how they came up with this endorsement.
It would also have been good to see what the running costs will be for the convention centre, exhibition centre, wave pool, community infrastructure, and the residential, and whether those costs be covered either through entry charges, rent, or hire charges or rates. Will the entry charges, fee and rates cover the running costs, or will the government have to budget each year to pick up the difference?
Deputy Chief Minister, I ask: what about the cost of the statutory authority? The establishment cost is $1m, and it is probably coming from the swimming pool money at Freds Pass, but the question is: what will be the running costs? Will it cover all functions that would normally be done by Darwin City Council, such as animal control plus all the other by-laws? I would be interested to know whether you have budgeted for an ongoing running cost of the statutory authority.
Even though I raise these issues, I still believe the project is good. There will be a wave pool, which will be great. The lagoon will be great for people to go boating, and the exhibition and conference centre will be of great benefit to Darwin, and the facilities will be welcome.
As a member of this parliament, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not ask some pretty good questions, particularly about the amount of public funds going into the project. One can be carried away by the glitz of a shiny new project, but many a large project like this has come tumbling down at the taxpayers’ expense because of blow-outs or poor returns, or whatever. On a project of this size, government should be up-front about all its costs, especially not hidden under the smokescreen of commercial confidentiality …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr WOOD: In the estimates, that was asked. The public was told $100m was the total input into the project only two years ago. This now seems to have blown out towards $300m ...
Mr Henderson: $144m – maximum.
Mr WOOD: Uh-uh. That is after you deduct - we need to know how much the government will spend and then you can also say we will get the return, but we are getting the nett return ...
Ms Martin: We are paying a mortgage.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but we need to know how much you are putting forward. Your nett return is only based on the sales that you hope will happen. I hope they do happen. You can at least tell people what we are investing in it and how much the other costs are. As I said, the other costs are not analysed and it is important that we know them.
I hope that the waterfront project will invoke words like ‘prestigious, exciting, vibrant, pride, magnificent, celebrate, iconic’ and ‘significant’ and phrases like ‘exciting new dimension, vibrant space, superbly located, economic stimulation, environmental and civic show piece, rich cultural park, dynamic presence, promising future, considerable economic benefit, bold and highly attractive, significantly better financial outcome, value for money for the Territory, considerable stimulus and a flourishing precinct’. Doesn’t that sound like something out of the real estate manual, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely!
Mr WOOD: It would worry me if that were the case.
Mr Henderson: The market is never wrong, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I know those old houses that are ‘a handyman’s paradise’. If this happens, it will be great, but do not let the excitement of this glorious monument of the Martin Labor government be looked at as the new pyramids of Darwin cloud the fact that parliament might be a great place to promote the real estate, but it is also the place to make sure the money entrusted to you by taxpayers is spent carefully.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Chief Minister’s statement.
I must admit that I am a great supporter of the waterfront development, and have been since the days of the CLP government. I recall when I heard that the CLP government had intentions to develop the waterfront, I was very excited. I am from Europe where many big cities are going through an urban renewal process, and many of them have redeveloped old commercial infrastructure, docklands and harbours into exciting new projects.
Unfortunately, it was too good to be true. When I saw the first plan, I was amazed: it was an island in the middle of the harbour. There was a bridge connecting the island to Darwin, and then to Mandorah. There was redevelopment of the waterfront with a big rotunda, and no one knew what it was, surrounded by enormous space of brick paving. There was no shade and no other development. The most exciting thing was the avenue leading from the waterfront to the Smith Street Mall.
It triggered my memory of Nicolai Ceausescu re-designing Bucharest during the era of Communist supremacy, when he designed a 16-lane highway leading to nowhere. There was no vision, there was no fantasy. It was redevelopment for the sake of redevelopment. What was the point of spending all the money on a design to develop the biggest car park in the Northern Territory? What was the point of putting an island in the middle of the harbour, despite the enormous cost, to connect a city of 100 000 with a village of about 100 in Mandorah at that time?
Certainly, Mandorah will develop in the next 20 or 30 years, but why spend the money now when it can be used somewhere else? I was very perplexed. I have to say that the Territory, compared with other jurisdictions in Australia, is a small territory, big in area, small in population, and Darwin, similarly, is a small place. It is a small place but with huge potential.
Darwin has what a realtor would say ‘position, position, position’. And it is true. Darwin is a place where you take three-and-a-half hours to go to Perth, four-and-a-half hours to Adelaide, two hours to Alice Springs, four hours to Brisbane, but only three-and-a-half hours to Singapore, three-and-a-quarter hours to Brunei and about three hours to Jakarta. Darwin is a place where, to the south there are about 18 million people, to the north about half a billion people. Darwin is located in a port that is three times the size of Sydney, and about 10 to 20 days closer to ports in Asia. If you do not believe me, you only have to go outside and have a look at the port today. There are seven cattle ships waiting there to load. Why do they not go to Wyndham, or to Queensland? Because they can get the same resources from here, and they can sail much quicker to their place of destination.
The potential of Darwin had not been realised in the 1980s when it should have been realised. People rely upon tourists. In the past 10 to 20 years, the pattern of tourism changed significantly. People would travel to Darwin and spend one or two weeks here as part of their holidays. People now will fly to Darwin, spend one night in Darwin, three days in Kakadu, one night in Darwin and back out again. Even the backpackers who used to do the Broome, Darwin, Cairns route do not seem to do that any more; they arrive in Darwin and fly in and fly out. Their habits have changed because of the lower cost of flying, people are more mobile and they can spend more time in different places with the same amount of money. Things have changed.
There were attempts by the previous government to cash in on the tourism industry with the Crowne Plaza, which used to be the Sheraton when it was developed, and the Uluru tourist complex. However, one thing they overlooked was conference tourism. Conference tourism will see people in Australia travelling from Brisbane to Perth, or from Perth to Adelaide, or from Perth to Sydney, or anywhere else in Australia to attend conferences. On some occasions, people from Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide will fly over Darwin to go to Bali or Malaysian resorts to attend a conference. There was never an idea of a conference centre, until somebody came up with an idea to establish a conference centre in the vicinity of the parliament, hence the demise of the Hotel Darwin.
This morning, I heard the member for Greatorex say: ‘Concrete cancer! Concrete cancer!’ Your own department’s report indicated that there was no concrete cancer. Your own department report at the time, when Tim Baldwin was the minister, indicated that the Hotel Darwin did not suffer any structural damage; it only required about $50 000 in repairs and about $25 000 a year maintenance to maintain. But, of course, it was very convenient to demolish it because somebody wanted to convert it to a convention centre that never eventuated.
The development of Darwin, the railway and the port has opened up new opportunities for Darwin. First of all, moving the port to East Arm has freed a significant parcel of land near the waterfront that can be converted to a fantastic development. It has happened in other places. The Melbourne Docklands come to mind, Darling Harbour in Sydney, and redevelopments in South Perth with the old gas works, and the old railway yards in Subiaco. When new developments took place, the railway yards moved somewhere else, the ports moved somewhere else, and parcels of land that had been degraded industrial pieces of land have been completely rejuvenated by developing new exciting projects in those areas.
As I said before, the plans by the CLP were big, but they had no imagination. There was a consultation initially by the CLP, a lot of criticism and a lot of comment. When we came to power in 2001 and we found the old CLP plans, we decided that we would not go along with that particular plan, we had to have our own new ideas. While we did, we proceeded with new community consultation. In fact, the community consultation for the waterfront has been significant. I believe there were about three sessions of community consultation in the past three or four years, and what we have now is something that the community has wanted - open space, community infrastructure and, of course, what the business community wants to build, a development that will create a new reality for Darwin.
I am very pleased to see the new plans, and to see the model developed by the proponents of the waterfront development. The member for Nelson said that people do not feel very happy because they had no opportunity to assess the plans the different proponents put forward for the waterfront. Well, commercial-in-confidence comes to mind. I do not think that, if I was a developer proposing to build something that will cost $1.1m, I would like my designs public. How am I going to keep it secret from the other developers? Am I going to keep this element that will make my project unique, and the elements that make my project more attractive to government when it is open to the public, to a public forum, so everybody has a view, especially my competitors?
The consultation with the public in the past four or five years has been significant, and has been very well received. What we learned from the public has been incorporated in the design of the winning proposal, and that is very significant.
However, coming back to the waterfront, when I was in Casuarina attending the display of the model, many people came through. Some people said ‘absolutely horrible, do not want to see it, it is too big, it will change Darwin forever’, but one thing I noticed was that many people - especially people who came from Europe - commented on what a good idea it was, and how it was going to change a piece of degraded, industrial real estate to something new and modern for the people to enjoy.
One of the comments that struck me was a young lady of Greek descent who said that she and her husband bought a unit in Athens and, after seeing the display in Casuarina, they were going to sell it and buy a unit at the waterfront because this is where they are going to retire. People like the idea and the development, even from the model, perhaps because people like to live very close to the water because it reminds them of the areas they came from, where you can go out and sit at the outdoor cafeterias or restaurants, enjoy your meal, and walk back home. That is very important; it is what people want.
However, what is most important also is the fact that this development will take 10 to 15 years to be fully developed; it is a $1.1bn development; it will generate 1000 direct jobs during the construction phase per year; and 230 jobs will be created during operations. What is most important is that the argument that this project will take people away from the CBD is unfounded. I believe that this project will bring people back to the city.
I will tell you about a discussion I had with someone who owns big properties in Darwin. We stood in the middle of Smith Street, near Woolworths, and he told me to look around because there were no people; there was a lot of empty office space and a lot of empty shops. I said to him: ‘I can see it, but what is it? What are they?’ He said: ‘They are office spaces. Great, but where are the people?’ ‘Oh, they live in Casuarina, Nakara, Tiwi, and Marrara’. Exactly, they are not living here. They work here, get in the car, move out and stop in Woolworths in Nightcliff or somewhere in Casuarina to pick up their evening meal. They go where they live in Palmerston, Nakara, Marrara, Moil and they stay there. They will not come here. Unless you bring people to the city, so that these people will do their shopping in the city, and will want to go out and be entertained in the city, or go for a meal in the city, you are not going to see Darwin alive after 5 pm. The only place you will see alive after 5 pm is Mitchell Street where you have the cafeterias, the hotels, the backpackers, people there who come out of their rooms and go down the street to be entertained and enjoy themselves.
This is what the waterfront will do. It will do exactly what the Sydney Darling Harbour has done to Sydney: bring people back to the city. People will buy the units and live there, and go to the taverna, the restaurant, the cafeteria, the small supermarket to do their shopping and be entertained and stay outside. I do not think that the waterfront will affect the CBD. On the contrary, it will enhance the CBD, especially if the interface between the CBD and the waterfront is such that it encourages movement from and to the CBD and the waterfront.
Will it bring more tourism? I have attended conferences in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth. Perth has just completed a convention centre at the waterfront and continues to build on it because it attracts a significant number of delegates nearly every month. Because of those delegates, a number of hotels have sprung up around the convention centre, along with a number of restaurants and cafeterias, that all survive from the convention tourist, which is very significant.
I believe that the Darwin convention and exhibition centre will be an asset for the city and an asset for the Territory because of our distance factor. We cater not only for Australia but we can cater for Asian market, With 1500 seat plenary space, 4000 m of exhibition space, that is the biggest building in Darwin; it is one of the biggest buildings in the northern part of Australia; and it can attract people from Australia and overseas.
The opposition says that they support the waterfront development. It was not long ago that I remember the member for Blain, the then Leader of the Opposition, saying publicly that he would scrap the project if they come to power. When they went out there they realised the opposition of the people, the opposition of the business community, and they immediately changed their tune. Now they are supporting it but, of course, there are problems. The idea of the CLP and some other people would be if we have problems, let us just do nothing - sit there, do nothing. ‘Do not do anything because we might make a mistake’, instead of sitting down and saying: ‘If there are going to be problems how are we going to address them? If we are going to make a mistake, let us put things in place to avoid making the mistakes’.
The waterfront development will be an asset for the city irrespective of which government is in power, ALP, CLP, Liberals or Nationals. The waterfront development will be an asset for the Territory and for Australia. So, instead of us sitting here and bitching about it and playing politics, why do they not support it? If you can see some problems, we would love to hear your solutions. We have not heard any. We only hear about problems. If you think there are going to be mistakes, tell us how we can avoid those mistakes. Let us get together, with people in Darwin, with the business community, with the contractors, with the people who are going to be employed there, to make sure that the waterfront happens.
We heard about workers in other states. The reality is, today, companies are not based in one town only. They just do not have an office based in Melbourne, or in Sydney, or in Darwin. There are companies that are actually based in Australia and have people working London, or in Paris, and they can communicate very easily and quickly. They can design a whole building in Paris and build it in Australia. The reality now is, with the communications and the facilities we have, we do not live in a town, we live in a global village. As for the companies that complain about not getting jobs through the waterfront, again, we have to realise that this is an open market. It is not a dictated economy. This is a market where people have to compete on merit; they have to provide the service and the facilities.
Again, some of the businesses here have only themselves to blame. I recall very well a business here that was approached by the company that will bring the Eurocopters to Darwin. They were asked to provide a service and they faxed back and said they could not do it, it was too big a problem. They did not speak to anyone else, they did not ask any assistance from the government, they just went back and said: ‘We cannot do it, it is too big for us, go somewhere else’. Well, they did, they went to Melbourne. So we lost an opportunity here.
Sometimes we have to look at our outcome abilities, our ability to deliver, and to learn to be more competitive in a global village. We cannot say we are in Darwin, we are a small jurisdiction, we live here, you have to give us all the work or some of the work. Companies do not work like that. Business does not work like that anymore.
We are prepared to support. We have requests from developers to give up to 85% of the work to local businesses and it is already happening: Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture - Sitzler Brothers are locals from Alice Springs; Macmahon formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell; Connell Mort McDonald; Rider Hunt; Knight Frank - all significant local companies, companies with a local presence.
Let us look forward to the development of the waterfront. Let us look forward to the transformation of that degraded industrial site into something unique for the Territory, something for Darwin. We have the opportunity. We have learnt from the mistakes other cities have made when they developed similar projects like the Docklands and Darling Harbour, and we can avoid them, and we can build something unique.
Darwin is the only tropical city in the north of Australia. We are the most northern city in Australia. We have the closest proximity to Asia. People from south comment on how Darwin resembles Asia more than any other Australian city, not only because of its climate, but because of its ethnic and social composition, and also because of the appearance of the city. The waterfront will enhance the city, will provide opportunities for work, and provide for Darwin to be really on the map for international tourism as a centre for international conventions.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, let me put some information in context: I am so disappointed, having heard the Chief Minister and three or four ministers, that they have continued to spin the history of the wharf precinct and its development.
First, go to this newspaper article. This was written in the NT News on Friday, 23 November 2001, soon after the Labor Party won government. It has a picture of the Chief Minister, looking rather unhappy, and the headline is: ‘CLP wharf plan a goer, says Chief Minister’. You can read it for yourself from there, I am sure, Madam Speaker. I will read a few words from the article, written by James Wakelin:
The member for …
Mr Henderson: Where was the convention centre? Show us where the convention centre was!
Dr LIM: Is this wrong? This is an article in the newspaper …
Mr Henderson: Go on, show us!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … barely months after the Labor Party won government. It goes on:
So, it was there four years ago endorsed by the Chief Minister. I go on with another paragraph from this article:
There, you see: that is the actual history of the wharf precinct. The members for Wanguri, Stuart and Nhulunbuy have been in this place for long enough, as has the member for Fannie Bay, to know that a convention centre was part of the overall planning for the development of Darwin. We had a convention centre; we had the wharf precinct. Yes, two different projects. Yes, the projects were there to benefit Darwin, the Top End and the Northern Territory.
Well and good that this government has chosen another path, and rightly so. You are in government and you can choose what you want. You have chosen to combine the two projects and put them in the wharf precinct. That is your choice. What we wanted to know during the years that we have been debating this issue is: give us all the information; do not hide it.
The Chief Minister on 9 October 2003 had this to say:
Of course, rightly so. That is what the opposition has maintained all along. We need to know, we deserve to know, we have the right to know what is being planned in the project and the costings to all the issues that are involved in this development.
Every time we ask, this government says: ‘You are anti-development; you are anti the wharf precinct’. We are not. We have said it time and time again. The Chief Minister, by her own words, accepted that the CLP very much wanted to develop the wharf precinct. In fact, she said that she supported the CLP plan for the wharf precinct.
So, do not come in here creating lies about the CLP and rewriting history. This government is so good at it; their political spin department is very good. They say one thing one day, and within six months, the story is completely different because they keep on spinning and spinning. Eventually, the Mr and Mrs Malaks of this world accept that what the government says today is what they said 12 months or four years ago. Well, it is not. If we go back through history, which is what I have just done, it shows that this government supported what the CLP initiated.
That is the problem with a minister like the member for Casuarina. He gets up, rabbits on and suddenly finds: ‘Oh, oh, I have to swallow my words again’. Did the CLP support the wharf precinct? Here is a letter written on 16 May 2005, written by ABN AMRO. The letter was addressed to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Denis Burke:
That is a third party endorsement of the CLP supporting …
Mr Henderson: Read the rest of the letter.
Dr LIM: … supporting …
Mr Henderson: Table it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Are you so resistant to the fact that the CLP supports this?
Mr Henderson: No. I would be interested to see the rest of the letter ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Henderson … because you are …
Ms Carney: You are a touchy little fellow, are you not?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of Government Business!
Dr LIM: It has been a problem for this government that they continue to spin and rewrite history, hoping one day that people will accept them for reality, for truth. It is not. The truth is, in fact, that this lazy government, this very arrogant government, has failed Territorians.
On a day, barely months after a general election that they won so handsomely, with 19 members in this Chamber on the government side, they have no government business, they have to pad today’s work with a couple of statements. That is the arrogance of the government - no legislation to deal with. It is 4 pm and we could have just packed up our books and all gone home today - nothing to do but a couple of statements …
Dr Burns: Are you saying this is not important?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: You have been calling for this statement for six months.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, please continue.
Dr LIM: When we sought to get a briefing several weeks ago: ‘Oh, there was nobody to give you a briefing, sorry, we cannot give you a briefing. We cannot give you a briefing. We do not have anybody here to do it for you’. Then, before a booking for a briefing was even finalised, out comes the statement. I welcome the statement, I seriously do. At least, for once, we know with some level of detail what this government is about. It has taken a long time coming.
The member for Nelson raised several issues about the finances and how confusing it is. I found it very confusing. I have been trying to compare the figures that have been mentioned by the Chief Minister on various occasions over the last four years. Trying to make some sense out of figures she has provided here today in this statement; it is very hard to follow.
I recall a $100m figure, used so very often previously. This is what they are going to put out for the convention centre and the 25 ha of land. All right, the 25 ha of land, as I can understand from the statement, will now provide the government with a return and, hopefully in the future, that will be a valuable return to the Northern Territory. Later on, there is $150m contribution by the government. Finally, we go down to $144m contribution by the government. So, we do not know where we are.
I propose, and I hope the government will take it on, that we are provided with a spreadsheet. Put it down in detail what the government is providing, what private enterprise is providing, what the money is used for in the different components of the whole project, so we can see clearly what it is. That is all we ask for and, in the Chief Minister’s own words, the public deserves to know; people will want to know. Her words: ‘People will want to know what is planned’. She also said: ‘Rightly so’. Let us have a look at the papers, the figures, in detail so that we can then compare apples with apples, and the same type of apples too.
This whole project has not really been about Territorians. The member for Wanguri got up today and said:
That is the arrogance of this government. This Leader of Government Business gets up and says: ‘We spend Territory money, $144m, and it will provide the government with an iconic international convention centre’. This is a Territory project. It is Territorians who are providing the taxes to pay for this. It is the Territory that should be the focus of this government, not ‘the government’. That is the arrogance that I find so offensive. I concede you won very handsomely, and that is okay. However, for goodness sake, govern for Territorians. Do not govern for yourselves, for your Labor Party, because this is not what it is about. Territorians have put their trust in you to govern for them. Do it for them!
I, on behalf of the opposition, support the convention centre for Darwin. Look at what we have achieved in Alice Springs. Albeit that the current Chief Minister opened the Alice Springs Convention Centre, it was brought to its fruition, almost to completion, by the former CLP government. It has benefited Alice Springs tremendously, and the Alice Springs tourism community has grown with the continuing growth of the convention business. I wish Darwin would have the same; I sincerely do. When talking to many of the businesses in Darwin, people are very keen to see this happen because they can see the benefits that it would draw into the Top End.
Our vision for a convention centre - our vision, the CLP’s vision for the convention centre - was there many years ago. We tried many different ways to bring it to a successful stage, but time beat us. It is not that we were not going to do it; we continued right to the day that the 2001 election was called. We tried to get something going, but time beat us. The convention centre is now going to be built at the wharf precinct - that is the government’s choice, fine. The Country Liberal Party was against it initially because we heard the community saying: ‘Do not build it down there, it will kill the CBD’. That was what the community was telling us and we were messengers: ‘Bring the message to this government’. What this government chose to do was to spin it around, spin the story to say that we were against the development …
Ms Martin: You were.
Dr LIM: No, we were not. We were not, because we were there promoting it! This Chief Minister supported it. Have you seen this article? Can you remember it? Your photograph is there. Do you want me to table it so you can see it? I will table it for you. I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker, so the Chief Minister can look for herself.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: The member for Casuarina said it was the CLP’s road to nowhere. Well, if it was the road to nowhere, then you are building a similar road to nowhere. If you believe that you are building a project that Territorians want, then so did the CLP. At least the CLP was always focused on what the Territory needs, and anything that was going to be built was built by Territorians, not for ‘the government’.
Territorians will be contributing significantly to this project, and it is important for this government to provide us with a clear understanding of where this money is coming from and what it will be spent on. In talking about community infrastructure Stage 1, the Chief Minister listed from marine works right through to the Avenue of Honour. The one thing that was not included is the environmental reparation works which will have to be undertaken on the contaminated land the whole precinct will be based on. We do not know what it is …
Ms Martin: $10m. I said later in the speech $10m.
Dr LIM: I pick up the Chief Minister’s interjection, $10m. $10m! I recall that the statement made by this government was that the government will pick up all costs for environmental reparation works - all costs. Maybe the Chief Minister’s $10m is a ballpark guesstimate figure that will be used. At estimates I raised the issue: how much dirt is going to be shifted. How much contaminated soil is going to be shifted? There was mass confusion! The minister did not know. The CEO gave me a figure and, when I put a counterargument to her, she was not sure because the counterargument also came from her department. The member for Nelson presented a letter from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment which was written to the Darwin City Council explaining how much dirt was going to be taken across to Shoal Bay to be treated and it was a lot of material - a lot more than the department actually agreed to. And finally, a letter was written by this minister, the Minister for Planning and Lands, on 14 July confirming there was a lot more dirt than first provided by the estimates - a lot more. So the minister needs to eat dirt to at least now to give us the right figures.
For the record, what the minister wrote needs to be put into Hansard and I quote this paragraph. The minister knows it very well. Paragraph four of his letter to the member for Nelson:
We have been always told that this project has a 15-year life, so we are looking at a substantial amount of contaminated soil that is going to be shifted from the site - that is the first problem - conveyed down Tiger Brennan Drive and other roads in the town at - I recall a government blurb - one truck every one to two minutes during the construction phase of this project. So, high numbers of traffic, road damage, and a lot of soil being transported from the site to the Shoal Bay dump. That contaminated soil contains not only different types of hydrocarbons but there will also be dirt that contains heavy metals which will need to be treated. There are many unknowns.
I ask the Chief Minister, in her response closing debate, that she either lays it out clearly or, if not, when the opposition presents for its briefing from the relevant officer, provides a clear definition of what the costs are, what the environmental reparation costs will be, and how it is projected for the next 15 years because right now, we do not know. I suggest to you the $144m that is now the maximum figure that has been quoted at this moment will probably rise even higher; that the $10m that the Chief Minister interjected with earlier is just the first bit of the cost that will have to be paid to decontaminate the land over the next 15 years.
There are some significant issues in this project. Support it? Yes we do. The information we are requesting needs to be provided clearly so that we can continue to track how this project is progressing over the next 15 years. Without it, it is hard to be clear on how we will report to Territorians on whether this government is doing the right thing or not. At the end of the day, this project belongs to Territorians, not this government.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront development. It is a fantastic project with 1000 jobs in the construction phase, 200 direct jobs in the operational phase of the convention and entertainment centre alone, and many more jobs in flow-on sectors of the economy. In operation, the waterfront will provide a wealth of jobs in the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors.
The waterfront will be a great place for Territorians and visitors alike to relax and enjoy themselves. It will become another element of the Territory’s unique lifestyle and a development of which we can justly be proud. It is reassuring to hear that the opposition has re-examined its opposition to the project and is now supporting it. We were chastised by the member for Greatorex, who said that the government is trying to own the project, yet, after he said that, he claimed that the CLP owned the whole of the Northern Territory and were basically responsible for everything in it.
It is a bit of a double standard, member for Greatorex, to chastise the government which, of course, is of the people by the people for the people, and substitute it with a brand name of a political party, the CLP. I thought it was paradoxical that you did that, member for Greatorex.
The member for Greatorex mentioned the Chief Minister’s so-called endorsement in a newspaper article. I will leave the Chief Minister to sweep up on that one.
He also asked the exact dollar contributions of government to the project. I reiterate the statements by the member for Wanguri that for an investment of somewhere around $150m, we have levered over $1bn of investment into the Northern Territory. That is a fantastic achievement, and something the opposition should be applauding. This is an investment. It is a lever. Here is the member for Greatorex quibbling over the dollar value on today’s dollars and future rates and asking what it all means. The member for Greatorex should see it as a fantastic investment for the Northern Territory.
He also talked about the hydrocarbons. I was in the process of going through the Estimates Committee Hansard. It was spelt out pretty plainly to the member for Greatorex. Basically, his assertion of truck load after truck load of contaminated soil going along Tiger Brennan Drive for 15 years was not true. The truth of the matter is, and I will come to it later, that most of the soil is being dredged and moved over to holding ponds in East Arm Port. There is very little soil that is contaminated.
Let us get one thing straight: the environmental report said that it was not heavily contaminated. In fact, the environmental report, as I recall, said that there was fairly low-level contamination both in hydrocarbons and metals. It is not right for the member for Greatorex to run a scare campaign about contaminated soil. We have been up-front about how that contaminated soil will be disposed of, and it will be disposed of in trenches at the dump with the cooperation of Darwin City Council.
In short, I welcome the fact that the opposition is now supporting this great development. It will be $1.1bn of development activity over the next 10 to 15 years. The development includes a local industry participation plan for each phase, and part of the plan is that a minimum of 85% of construction value will go to local small business and industry.
I would like to give the House a little information about the Local Industry Participation Plan. I have already talked about the target of 85%. It also contains warrantable commitments - this is for companies that are involved with this - in relation to the establishment of an office in Darwin; implementation of an employment and training plan; provision of a cumulative total of 10 scholarships over the period of the development; and undertaking an economic study of the impact of the development. The Local Industry Participation Plan also provides for contract packages to be prepared in consultation with the NT Industry Capability Network to enable local firms with the appropriate capabilities to compete for work. It is too early in the design phase for these consultations to commence with compliance with the Local Industry Participation Plan to be monitored through quarterly reporting by the consortium.
This morning we had the Leader of the Opposition talking about an airconditioning company. She was asserting that this airconditioning company had missed out on contracts to do with the waterfront development. To set the record straight in terms of this: AE Smith, which was the interstate company mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, is the mechanical services designer for the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture on the DCEC and they are based interstate. However, the company that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to, a local company, is a recognised subcontractor. They are a large company in Darwin and the Northern Territory and they are recognised as such. The overall design of the airconditioning facilities in regard to the entertainment centre has always been posited with AE Smith. Now, through the Local Industry Participation Plan, all these jobs will be contracted out, and all airconditioning-type firms in Darwin, local firms, will have an opportunity to tender on that work. That is the simple explanation here.
I have been advised that no one company has been given exclusivity in this work. It has always been on the basis that they are a subcontractor and they will be competing against other local firms for this work. It is a bit of a furphy for the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and make the assertions that she did today because, basically, the Local Industry Participation Plan guarantees 85% of work going to local companies.
There are financial consequences for the consortium if the targets are not met. In addition, the Local Industry Participation Plan contains other commitments that I have mentioned. Macmahon Contractors is the design and construct contractor for the community infrastructure works. Magnetometer investigations have been undertaken to determine occurrence of metal objects in the area to be dredged, including potential unexploded ordnance which, of course, would have been leftovers from World War II. Work involving the removal of these objects will be undertaken prior to the commencement of dredging activities. This is not the first time that possible unexploded ordnance has been dealt with on Northern Territory construction projects; for example, the AustralAsia Railway, and residential and marina developments in Frances Bay have all had to deal with the possible presence of unexploded ordnance.
The dredge floor pond has been constructed within the reclamation area at the Port of Darwin development at East Arm. This pond will retain sediments to be removed for the construction of the sea wall and the convention centre pad within Kitchener Bay. The assembly of the dredge pipeline which will carry sediments from Kitchener Bay to the sediment ponds at East Arm is in progress. Dredging of the foundation for the convention centre pad will be the first construction activity undertaken on-site, but this will require the removal of metal objects, as I said, ahead of dredging. Fill for the construction of the convention centre pad will be transported by road trains to a surge pile on the site of the old Darwin Power Station. The fill material will then be prepared to specification and placed using dump trucks and dozers. Work on this component is anticipated to be completed by mid-November 2005.
On completion of the convention centre pad, construction will proceed on the sea wall with completion targeted for mid-July 2006. Headworks to the boundary of the site are to be undertaken by separate contract. Documentation is currently being prepared for this work to be completed by June 2006.
Demolition of the old Fort Hill Wharf is currently in progress and is required to be completed to enable the construction of the western end of the sea wall. Demolition of the old power station fuel tanks within Stokes Hill, and a redundant water tank on the rim of Stokes Hill, is now complete allowing remediation of the site to proceed. Demolition of the boom shed is proceeding and is due for completion by next month. The remaining Darwin Port Corporation buildings will be demolished at the residential developer’s cost when this area is required in the future. Removal of the remnants of the ore stockpile areas adjacent to Fort Hill, and the demolition of the iron ore ship loader, will be undertaken as a Northern Territory government obligation when the area is required for future residential development.
Environmental management is important with any project. It is especially important with a project of this size and with its proximity to the Darwin Harbour. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure commissioned URS to prepare an environment impact statement for the project. This work was completed at a cost of $1.9m. GHD is providing environmental auditing services, particularly with respect to remediation of the site and the site management plan, at a cost of $0.2m. The role of the independent environmental auditor is to ensure that any remediation that is necessary meets the standards equivalent to those of the Victorian Environmental Protection Agency which, I believe, is a very positive aspect. There is an independent environmental auditor who will look at the environmental aspect of this development and make sure that it all comes up to standard.
The EIS revealed relatively low levels of contamination across the waterfront site. I will say that again for the benefit of the member for Greatorex: the EIS revealed relatively low levels of contamination across the waterfront site. The draft environmental assessments, including geotechnical and contamination investigations, were provided to the three short-listed consortia for consideration in the preparation of their respective proposals.
A remedial action plan, RAP, was endorsed on 26 July 2005 by the independent environmental auditor. The auditor will issue a statement of environmental audit which will include a statement of suitable land uses following the prescribed remediation.
The developer proposes to carry out extensive dredging and marine works commencing this month. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has carried out ecological risk assessment for dredging operations, and the dredge management plan has subsequently been approved. The developer has prepared an overall environmental management framework, and this was approved by the OEH on 25 July 2005. A draft construction environmental management plan has been prepared in accordance with the already established environmental and management requirements. This document is currently under review through the Development Consent Authority’s approval process.
I now turn to the elements of the development consent process. Contrary to some of the assertions made by the opposition prior to the last election, this whole project has been through a very transparent public process, the normal consent processes. The public has been involved and people have been able to comment. It has all been very public, contrary to assertions by the opposition that, somehow, this whole process is being hurried unduly, and processes are being shortcut. I will now outline the processes under the DCA just to illustrate the considerable involvement through the consent process.
The DCA considered the marine infrastructure and community infrastructure applications at a meeting on 23 February 2005, and granted conditional consent to those applications. Consideration of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre application was deferred at the applicant’s request pending architectural amendments. A supplementary package has now been provided. This was considered by the DCA on 3 August 2005. The mixed use residential/commercial application is the fourth development application lodged by the developer, and was placed on public exhibition from 4 March to 18 March 2005. The application was scheduled to be heard at the meeting on 6 April. However, government temporarily withdrew authorisation pending financial negations which have now been concluded. A new application for this component of Stage 1 was lodged on 27 June 2005, and was considered by the DCA on 3 August 2005.
The mixed use service apartment/hostel commercial application was re-lodged on 30 May 2005, with public exhibition during June. The application was considered at the DCA hearing on 6 July 2005. It was resolved to delegate the determination of the application to the chairman and one member, subject to the submission of amended plans that address the height issue and bring it in line with the Darwin City Waterfront Land Use Concept Plan.
A development application seeking consent to develop a lock in the sea wall was lodged by the proponents on 29 July 2005. This will allow its consideration at the DCA meeting on 7 December 2005.
An application was lodged by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment to subdivide and consolidate a range of parcels in the Darwin City Waterfront area to facilitate the issue of a Crown lease term to the Darwin Cove Consortium for the redevelopment. The application was considered and approved by the DCA on 4 May 2005. The development permit was signed on 17 May 2005; exclusion of the sacred site from this parcel was lodged on 24 May 2005; and a variation to the development permit was signed on 10 June 2005.
So, there you have it: very extensive public processes through the consent authority. Everything has been done according to law and process. The statutory time frames have been observed and proper process has been followed.
I commend the DCA and the proponents for going through these rigorous processes. It all means a better development for the people of the Northern Territory.
Before I close, I would just like to touch on an issue raised by the member for Nelson. He said it would have been better if the public could have seen the three plans that were put up by the three different consortia which were short listed for the project. At one level, I can understand what the member for Nelson is talking about. He is arguing that the public is putting up the money for this and the public should have a fair say in deciding. But, in the world of commerce, and this is fairly high commerce, those rules cannot really apply because many of the submissions are commercial-in-confidence and there is a probity process to be followed.
We saw when the Darwin City Council got involved with the Darwin Dental Clinic process and started picking their favourites, their best proposal, the whole probity process was undermined. I received advice from the probity auditor that that process should be abandoned, and that is what happened. No one was really happy about that.
I say to the member for Nelson, yes, I understand what you mean but, really, in these very large projects there is a process; there are assessments made according to a number of agreed criteria. Those assessments are made by independent experts, and then recommendations come to government and government makes decisions. Basically, we know in these projects how one side will try to lever the public against another side, and it is just not appropriate. The Darwin Dental Clinic was one example where the public, the council, got involved and, basically, the whole process was subverted.
I will finish by adding my congratulations to all those involved, from the private sector and the public sector, including the unsuccessful bidders, in bringing this project to financial close. From the expressions of interest being called in September 2003 to financial close, there was an intense period of work for all involved. This is a $1.1bn project involving complex contractual agreements and financing. I would like to thank the Department of the Chief Minister and Mr Paul Tyrrell, and those in the team who supported him in the negotiations; the Office of Environment and Heritage for all the hard work that they have done in terms of the environmental assessments; the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and, of course, the ones who hold the money, the Northern Territory Treasury, being involved in this at a very important level.
I commend this project to the House. It is a great project for the Northern Territory; it is a great project for Darwin. It is going to shore up our tourism industry over the next 10 to 20 years. It is going to make Darwin an even more desirable destination. It will be a great asset to this city, to the Northern Territory and to the region. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront development to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I, too, commend the Chief Minister for bringing the statement to the House. The waterfront project is going to be fantastic for Darwin and the Territory for so many reasons. There are long-term benefits for both business and tourism. It is a great new facility for the public, and the jobs that come with construction and operation will be very welcome.
The waterfront development adds a dimension to the tourism industry in Darwin. The convention centre will attract the corporate tourist, which is a component of the tourism industry that we have been missing out on to date. They are big spending. Attracting conventions will form a big component of extending the shoulder season, something we know is important to the viability of our tourism sector.
The convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs for Territorians by year four of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by year 10. It will create a new population base with an influx of convention visitors and this will increase demand for shopping in our central business district. A lovely aspect of the waterfront development will be the Avenue of Honour which links the convention centre and hotel precinct with the central business district and mall. The Avenue of Honour will provide pedestrian access in a sheltered environment and will be a spectacular link between the mall and the convention centre and waterfront.
The new cruise ship terminal that is being constructed as part of this project will increase the number of big spending tourists coming to the CBD from those wonderful cruise ships we have increasingly seen stopping in Darwin.
The new facility for the public will be great for business, but it also helps everyone in Darwin because it is very much a public facility; 40% of the project is dedicated to public open space. There will be parks, gardens and a children’s playground. There is an open-air amphitheatre, a boardwalk and a promenade, plenty of cafs and bars. However, for some people it will be the water activities that are the most exciting, with a swimming area and wave pool.
As the member for Karama and being involved in the redevelopment at Leanyer Recreation Park, I know just how successful a water park can be in improving the lifestyle of our community. I am sure that the wave pool will be just as popular, if not more popular, than the facility that this government has already delivered.
The opposition distributed a flyer within the NT News calling the wave pool a gimmick. Sure, a wave pool is great fun, but providing our youth with things they really enjoy doing - activity and recreation - is no gimmick; it is extremely important.
In relation to the construction aspects of this exciting project, there are many subcontractors who live in my electorate of Karama. I know that this construction project is incredibly good news for them. There is a wide range of skilled workers to be employed including project and site managers, foremen and supervisors, carpenters, bricklayers, scaffolders, concreters, steel and plaster fixers, painters and electricians; 1000 construction jobs are anticipated with 85% of them going to locals. I congratulate the government for ensuring the 85% local participation provision.
I have certainly seen the boom period that the Territory has been going through in the jobs that subcontractors are picking up, and it is having a real impact on the look of my electorate. The subbies are pretty flush with money and are turning that around into renovating their homes. We are getting some lovely home extensions happening right throughout my electorate in the suburbs of Karama and Malak at the moment. They are subbies making the most of the good times in providing for their families in a very nice way, by investing in home ownership in the Territory.
A fantastic aspect of this waterfront project is the fact it is a public/private partnership. The project is a great example of a public/private partnership. Using private sector investment gets the convention centre constructed and available quickly. Then, after 25 years, it transfers back into full government ownership; a very exciting process. I congratulate the Chief Minister and her departmental staff for being able to provide such a wonderful deal for the Territory public.
The opposition has been all over the place on this issue. At one stage, they said the whole project should be funded by the government. Then, at another time, they suggested that the government contribution had been too high. I guess they were just stuck on their car park idea. With the opposition’s position of scrapping the whole project, they probably did not spend too much time thinking about the financing, and that became very apparent with the shifts and changes and the lines coming from the opposition. We saw more shifts and changes on that subject in debate today.
The project is an icon project for Darwin. It is a beautiful way to showcase our gorgeous harbour. I know many people are looking forward to seeing the many benefits in lifestyle and provision of first-class facilities which will flow from the waterfront project. It is an exciting time to see what had been a rundown area of the wharf precinct come to life. There has been much activity in preparation. I congratulate the many people, as the previous speaker did, who have been at the forefront in planning and designing the remedial work that needs to be done to prepare for this project, and for the really hard work done by officers of departments to bring this project to fruition.
However, it was because the Martin government had a vision of promising and delivering on a convention centre for Darwin. I know there was community debate about location. I have spoken to some business people who were of the view that they would have preferred it to be closer to the mall but, more and more as they see this project coming to fruition, their views are shifting. They see the real benefits and linkages between the waterfront project and the mall. The Avenue of Honour is an appropriate way to provide that linkage, and I congratulate the planners for having a vision of integrating the waterfront precinct into our wonderful growing CBD area.
As Minister for Sport and Recreation, much of my effort and time, obviously, goes into sport, but I do remind people that recreation is an aspect of my responsibilities. This will be a wonderful recreational opportunity for the people of Darwin and, more broadly, the Territory. I know Territorians travel from the regional and remote parts of the Territory into Darwin as a service hub, whether it is for work, study or visiting family, so people from right throughout the Territory will enjoy the benefits of this waterfront. Certainly, those of us who travel interstate from time to time, know the beauty of such projects; for example, the waterfront changes in Melbourne, and seeing how Southbank has reformed and reshaped Brisbane. You are certainly left in no doubt as to the beauty and importance of these projects to our nation’s capital cities.
From what I have seen of the waterfront plans and proposals, this is the project to beat all others. It is certainly fitting that we will create the pearl within our harbour through this waterfront development. I know the Chief Minister has her eye on detail. She has been very proactive in ensuring that this is a transparent and good process to follow in terms of probity. I congratulate her for that. Certainly, previous Chief Ministers did not have such a view when it came to major developments and projects that spent Territorians’ money. I also know the view is to ensure that we have a first rate facility, and that will go down to the finishing detail in the project.
It is a massive project: $150 m of government investment averaging a $1bn project. I congratulate all of those involved in bringing the waterfront vision and dream through to a stage where we are close to seeing it come to fruition in the start of development and construction. This project will add to our economy, it will add to our lifestyle, and it will be a wonderful asset to our great city of Darwin and more broadly to the Northern Territory.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the people of Port Darwin in relation to the Darwin City Waterfront development, Darwin Cove. The Chief Minister has already mentioned that financial close for the project occurred on 9 May 2005. The people of Port Darwin and I are very excited about the commencement of the Darwin City Waterfront project as, I believe, are the majority of Territorians. The feedback I am receiving from constituents is positive and one of anticipation. I will be working closely with residents, the consortium and government to ensure that disruptions are kept to an absolute minimum, and any concerns raised by the people of Port Darwin will be addressed in a timely and thorough manner.
The project will include a sea wall, providing approximately 5 ha of safe swimming areas, being a wave pool and public beaches. There will also be a 141-room apartment hotel, harbour side cafs and restaurants.
In Stage 1, there will be 138 residential units constructed. Residential opportunities have created a buzz with many of the young people I have spoken to in Port Darwin. Several have indicated that they are madly saving their deposits for the pending residential areas. These young people have been attracted to the project due to the fantastic facilities that will make up the basis for this development. The wave pool is certainly a winner, according to the constituents that I have spoken with. Other comments from my more mature constituents have included their approval of the provision of almost 1000 jobs during the construction phase, and the fact that there will be around 40% open public space throughout the development.
People have been impressed with the continuous updates on the government web site in relation to progress and plans. I encourage all Territorians to visit the web site at www.waterfront.nt.gov.au. A tourism drawcard, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre, with 1500 seat capacity and a total of 4000 m2 of exhibition space, will increase tourism by an estimated $190m over 20 years - that is in today’s dollars.
Territorians will reap the benefits from the project with 1000 jobs being created during the construction and an 85% local content component guaranteed in the project contracts. Also, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre alone is expected to create around 160 tourism jobs.
A Port Darwin constituent has asked whether there will be a provision of a free beach at the development. I must report that there will most certainly be a beach being provided free of cost, hence allowing access to all Territorians no matter what their economic situation. However, there is no provision planned for a nude beach at this development. The Darwin waterfront development will be an exceptional area that families, couples, singles, youth and seniors can enjoy. We, quite rightly, claim this is as another reason that Port Darwin is the best place to live. We are very fortunate to have this fantastic development on our doorstep, although I must say that this facility will be used by all people in Darwin and surrounding areas and will be a genuine tourist destination.
Imagine the buzz in the city when there are conferences being catered for 1500-plus people, who will bring their spouses and children. A trip down the Avenue of Honour will take in some of our history, culture and significant reasons that Darwin is Darwin and like nowhere else in the world. They stop to buy from our local traders, and stay to travel on to other fantastic destinations that the Territory has to offer such as Litchfield National Park, Kakadu, Alice Springs, Uluru, Karlwe or Devil’s Marbles, Alice Springs Desert Park, Watarrka or Kings Canyon, Katherine, Nitmiluk and Gregory National Park. The citizens of our southern states would surely have to travel for hours to reach such a comprehensive and exciting destination, which will available on our doorstep for all to enjoy.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to support the statement given by the Chief Minister on the Darwin City Waterfront. When first arriving in Darwin from Adelaide, the one thing that struck my family about this wonderful city was the limited recreational opportunities available in and around the coastal areas or waters. I guess this was reinforced by having, at the time, a 15-year-old son who just loved all beach activities but, more importantly, just loved catching the odd wave on the south coast of South Australia on his boogie board.
What a wonderful vision this project has presented to the people of the Northern Territory. It would not only transform the somewhat unsightly wharf precinct as it presently stands into a foreshore complex of beauty, but it also adds a fantastic dimension to Darwin city that will broaden the attraction for people to move here but, more importantly, stay.
South Australia has recently observed a similar development. The mouth of the Patawalonga Creek at Glenelg has received a stunning transformation into an ongoing world-class development, namely the Holdfast Shores development. The precinct of Glenelg has witnessed substantial expansion which has further enhanced local residents’ lifestyles and provided exciting business and investment opportunities. Like this government, the City of Holdfast Bay also had vision. They wanted to enhance the Glenelg area’s natural beauty by preserving open spaces and character but, in doing so, ensuring the environment is cared for with diligence.
Indigenous trees and plants, for instance, are now giving the parks and surrounds special visual appeal, while regular maintenance and cleaning programs contribute to the inviting texture of the development. The provision of these public areas and attractive landscaping and walkways along the banks and promenades have enhanced the residential apartment buildings and hotels, the marina basins and the restaurants, and small businesses situated within the wonderful entertainment precinct.
It is great to see the plans of the waterfront have incorporated similar ideas to encapsulate the family friendly environments required to attract people to the development. The open space plans, the wave pool, beach volleyball, playgrounds, cafs and restaurants and picnic areas are wonderful entertainment options, pleasurable enticements for families to enjoy. I know for a fact the residents of the city of Holdfast Bay and surrounding suburbs certainly enjoy an enviable lifestyle and Glenelg has the reputation as the most visited metropolitan seaside destination in South Australia.
The Darwin City Waterfront project also has the same capabilities of attraction as the Holdfast Shore Marina complex for the local and interstate market, while adding to Darwin a sophisticated tropical savannah city of national and global influence. The centrepiece of the waterfront, the convention and exhibition centre, will add a dimension to Darwin that it has not been able to cater for in the past. This structure will be an iconic building that all Darwin people will be proud to relate to. It will be enjoyed by them all year round, as well as add an element of pride through association. The seating capacity of 1500 people will provide Darwin with an asset comparable to many other states.
As we all know, business and conference tourism is a high yield segment of the tourism industry, and the attraction of such a facility of this nature will add another dimension to what is already a spirited market Australia-wide. However, the many attractions Darwin and the Territory has to offer will, I am sure, entice a considerable slice of the market to the Top End. It is interesting to note, reported in the latest copy of the convention’s incentive marketing publication, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre has already locked in its first conference. The International Association of Women Police has booked the centre in September 2008, attracting 700 delegates to Darwin for six nights; the first of many, many more to come.
The added attraction of the 4000 m exhibition space, coupled with the close proximity of four and five star hotel accommodation and caf and restaurant trade and the associated leisure and recreation opportunities will all add to a marvellous flavour of vibrance and attractiveness of the complex.
The centre will directly and indirectly create ongoing job and business opportunities via the multiplying effect brought about by the construction and operation of the centre, as well as attract large conventions, concerts and consortiums, thus adding valuable numbers to the already buoyant tourist market. It has been calculated that the increase in tourism spending will be $190m over 20 years, significant dollars for the businesses of the Territory and most certainly exposure to the broader audience.
For me, the most significant feature of the waterfront development will be the flow-on benefits to the people of Darwin. The project will generate strong business for local traders in the construction and fabrication industry in and around my electorate zones of Winnellie and Berrimah. I am sure that with these increased business opportunities now available, new players will be enticed into the market from other places of the country.
It is especially pleasing to note that this government has negotiated with the consortium building the development that a minimum of 85% in construction value for the project will go to local industry, an especially commendable outcome for Territorians. It is not only the construction industry that will benefit from this major building and construction program. Of course, the hospitality and retail sections of the market will receive an added boost to their share of the market, and will obviously lead to a positive outlook for the future of their businesses.
The transformation of the current Wharf Precinct into this proposed exciting and vibrant concept of architectural brilliance will, undoubtedly, add to the already growing economy and growth of Darwin, and have wonderful positive benefits for us, the current residents.
As I previously stated, I have witnessed first-hand the benefits that such a project can bring to a city. One of the most significant benefits will be the increase in property values, thus adding stability and confidence to the already exceptionally well performing real estate market in Darwin. For the past few years, Darwin has seen some very positive growth in the housing market, and this trend will continue in an upward direction, buoyed by the positive acceptance of this project.
This government’s housing incentives, such as the HomeNorth scheme, will also assist people getting into the project’s residential developments planned for Stages 2 and 3.
Darwin is already renowned for its fabulous climate, quality of living and lifestyle benefits. To add a magnificent project such as the Darwin City Waterfront to enhance the benefits we are already lucky enough to enjoy is a wonderful innovation.
I have much pleasure in supporting the Chief Minister’s statement and look forward to catching a wave at the wave pool.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it tires me a little to weigh into the same kind of debate that has been conducted over an extended period of time in relation to the waterfront. To put it simply: this is a very important development. It was on the agenda of former governments and administrations. It is rightfully on the agenda of this government, and progress has been made.
It is the obligation of the opposition, be it ALP or CLP, to ask legitimate questions. The wider community, be they contractors in Winnellie, or environmental groups, or mums and dads with a sense of vision and a desire to be actively involved in decisions made on their behalf, speak either to government or opposition. It is the role of opposition to play their part in what is a project to serve the long-term benefit of all Territorians.
It was sad to hear the Freudian slip made by the member for Wanguri who, in the excitement of fixing the badge of ownership of the Martin Labor government on this fine project, said it will deliver great return to government, which underlies the motivation, sadly, of this project, when most of the debate has centred around who actually owns it, and to establish that as a perception to create the impression that the opposition opposes it and wants it scrapped.
Those debates have occurred. It is on the public record time and time again that the position of opposition is that this project could have been done differently. Rather than go over that again, government needs to accept that the project could have been done differently. It could have been based on different foundations in respect of development of the land in parcels or in one fell swoop, which government has chosen to do, obviously serving the interests of a shorter term gain driven by political opportunity. That is the domain of government. That is the path they chose. The opposition played its part. The electorate made its decision. Chickens may come home to roost on decisions that this government has made.
The fact is that this government has chosen a particular path. We stand in opposition to ask legitimate questions, as we should because we are still being contacted by members of the community who are concerned about aspects of this project. In raising such concerns, please, honourable members opposite, do not be so sensitive as to think that we do not like your great initiative. Have some confidence in your own decisions. If this is the way you have chosen to go, that is the way you are going because you are in government and you are in charge of this.
However, there is the need to raise questions from time to time. We have been contacted by contractors who feel that the rhetoric of this government has not matched the actual outcome with regards to local contractors being involved.
In my mind, there is a connection between the travel rorts, scandal, mismanagement, and an aspect of local contractor involvement. It appears, time and time again, the personality of this government is one of having their hands off the tiller. They are not actually directly involved, it is like a hands-off approach; it all happens around them. It is as if they do not understand that a minister or government, has the opportunity to cross boundaries and ensure that certain policy directions are brought to bear upon decision-making. They are the government and they are administering this whole process on behalf of Territorians, in the best interests of Territorians.
We can have the word games, we can have the arguments, but the fact is, there are contractors out there who believe that more effort could have been made to have them actively involved and, if that kind of leadership had been provided, in the case of three different contractors related to the area of electrical work and airconditioning, more effort could have been made to have them more actively involved.
The assertions of this government with regards to the 10 000 apprenticeships and trainees could have been given additional weight, because you would have involved local operators who could legitimately have been involved and the benefits would have flowed on through these local firms into greater outcomes in apprenticeships and traineeships. Those sorts of things are what we are talking about. Government makes its decision, and if they make the bed, that is the bed they will have to lie in. Decisions have been made. The contractors have observed these decisions and incurred a hurt when rhetoric does not match reality.
With that said, and noting the words of honourable members, this project is supported, albeit from the point of view of opposition, where it is our objective to ensure that Territorians do get a project that benefits them in the long term. There will always remain concerns about the manner in which the land has been divided up, the cost of the project, and the still undetermined cost of the land that has been brought into this deal, and the remaining legitimate concerns - if anyone reflects on this - about the connectivity between this project on the waterfront and the CBD.
Members who are obviously preparing their speeches, particularly the newer members, I am sure, would have been approaching this with an open mind and would have looked at the comments made by members, whatever side of the Chamber they may have been on, and will recognise that the thread running through the opposition’s concerns was quite legitimate; that is, the issue of connectivity. The project that was articulated and described by opposition emphasised that issue of connectivity. This project seems to have a gap and a deficiency in that specific regard, and that is one area that we will remain focused upon.
With those words, the opposition will continue to watch carefully, and endeavour to do the best we can on behalf of Territorians so that, in the long term, our children and their children will see the decisions that have been made on their behalf will, hopefully, sustain way into the future, beyond the life of particular governments who seek, sadly, to draw more attention to themselves and, hopefully, that they can extract as much political capital from their own duty, which they must perform on behalf of Territorians both here and now and into the future.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I speak in reply to the Chief Minister’s statement. I believe this project will be, and is, a great asset for the Northern Territory as a whole, not just Darwin, Palmerston and the surrounding rural areas. It will improve the use of the area it covers and provide economic benefits to the Territory.
Without doubt, the waterfront project will mean more people will spend more time in the immediate area and its surrounds. I have not personally done the mathematics, but I understand that 40% of the development will be open public space. This was important for me because one of the great attractions of Darwin is the amount of open green area maintained as part of our city. Open space is important to ensure that the maximum number of Territorians have access to an important part of our city - the wharf area.
Many people already enjoy Stokes Hill Wharf. It is a well used fishing spot, as well as a well patronised eating and shopping area. There are also a variety of other shops in the area. However, I believe all members can agree that we can make better use of it; much of the area retains an industrial feel. The waterfront will be transformed by this development into an environmental and civic showpiece, of which all Territorians will be proud. Darwin needs a convention centre. Government consulted widely with local business, and this was an item that local business requested. The government delivered for local business.
The wave pool is another of the public use components I am sure will be used by all of the community, and especially enjoyed by our young people. I am not much of a wave slave myself, but understand that many Palmerston and Darwin residents do enjoy a bit of surf. I know that some people look on the arrival of a big storm as a provider of that surf that is not otherwise present. The wave pool may not completely replace windsurfing the waves during one of our big storms during the Wet as an adrenalin rush but, hopefully, it will provide a fun activity for residents of and visitors to Darwin.
The multitude of cafs and restaurants will encourage people to take advantage of our great weather and food. I know Melburnians and Sydneyites like to see their city as meccas of alfresco dining. If only more of them would come to visit Darwin and Palmerston. We all know Mitchell Street and how vibrant that is, but I must also mention the Palmerston Markets of a Friday evening.
Members may not be aware that the Northern Territory government and Palmerston City Council are redeveloping the Palmerston City Centre in partnership. The Palmerston City Council undertook community consultation, and the results of that consultation were incorporated into the design. Work includes a new public library building funded by the council, recreation centre being built by the Northern Territory government, and roadworks also paid for by the Northern Territory government. There will be further redevelopment and, as I understand it, the council hopes that the area will include more alfresco restaurants and cafs. This government will continue to work in conjunction with the Palmerston council to ensure that appropriate development, in consultation with the community, continues to improve the vibrancy and utility of the Palmerston City Centre.
The waterfront’s cafs and restaurants will add a further outlet to our desire to enjoy our environment and weather. To ensure I do not earn the wrath of others of you such as the Chief Minister, Speaker and Government Whip, I should also say the waterfront will be a welcome addition to our other icons of Darwin lifestyle such as the Mindil Beach, Parap, Rapid Creek and Nightcliff Markets.
I have always been aghast at some of the types of development seen in other major waterfront areas. It seems that there was some formula applied that included lots of units and concrete boxes, without much variation. I am confident that this government can meet the challenge not to develop this kind of formulae waterfront vision as seen elsewhere. Territorians and the capital city, Darwin, are different; and Territorians will appreciate a uniquely Territorian project encapsulating Darwin’s unique characteristics and people. It is pertinent to remind honourable members that our harbour is, in fact, bigger than Sydney Harbour.
I have mentioned a number of components that have an economic benefit, but my emphasis in discussion thus far was really in respect of the greater use that the waterfront project will bring.
Let me now turn to some of the economic benefits. Needless to say, the increase in shops, cafs and restaurants will see more Territorians employed in the hospitality industry. As the Chief Minister discussed earlier today, these Territorians will be able to welcome those travellers who have come to share our story. Some will have come back from trips to Kakadu or Litchfield. Others may be resting weary feet after trekking to and from the various tourist destinations within Darwin and its surrounds. I note particularly that many visitors to Darwin have a keen interest in World War II sites and history. Many enjoy visiting the remains of the airbases that protected the Top End from what was then thought to be, and could well have been, invasion from the north. I can see the waterfront being a base from which these visitors launch themselves into discovery of our wonderful part of the world.
The construction phases will provide many jobs for Territorians. A minimum of 85% construction value to local firms will flow through to local jobs. As we have heard the consortium includes considerable local representation such as Sitzler, and Macmahon NT - which was formerly the Henry Walker Eltin Group, an icon member of industry in the Territory. The construction will continue for approximately 15 years, providing a sustainable job market for the medium term. It provides the industry for training our local apprentices.
As honourable members are aware, this government has committed to 10 000 commencements of new apprentices and trainees in the next four years; young Territorians looking to become painters, form workers, mechanics, welders, hospitality workers, chefs, wait staff, and security staff to name but a few. These jobs must be seen in conjunction with the jobs that are available with the expansion of the Alcan mine in Gove and the GEMCO mine on Groote Eylandt. These are not just mining jobs. These expansions require building additional infrastructure. It means more catering staff to feed the mine work force. Trainers in safety will be required if the mine operators are going to meet their obligations, which I have no doubt they will continue to do, under the watchful eye of the union movement and WorkSafe NT. It is just a pity the federal government will not yet match Northern Territory government’s commitment to protect workers’ rights and abandon their industrial relations agenda in preference for more enlightened policy.
Let us not forget also the development of the biodiesel plant. I attended the Resource Industry Forum a little while ago where I first heard about this facility. Another of the presentations was from BOC who are looking to open a helium plant. These two projects are very exciting and add further to the build up of significant business in the Northern Territory.
I commend the government for securing the returns of 10% of gross commercial sales and 12% gross residential sales from Stage 1. The Territory will get a further 10% of gross commercial sales and 18% of gross residential sales from Stage 2. As the Chief Minister has said, these returns compare favourable with equivalent government arrangements elsewhere and Stage 2 compares very well. The government is well served by its experts in the various departments as referred to by the Chief Minister. I look forward to confirmation of this when the Auditor-General makes his report.
I would like to extend special congratulations to Mr Alastair Shields from the Department of Justice whom the Chief Minister thanked. I have known Mr Shields for some time and just wanted to wish him all of the best in married life and hope that he managed to move the door from his driveway!
The waterfront is an exciting project. When it is completely finished we will have a world-class public area that reflects our aspirations and lifestyles. We will be able to enjoy the various facilities for years to come. It will provide jobs for Territorians – both during the building and after it is completed. It will provide a project for our apprentices and trainees to be part of. It will provide a magnificent place for us to welcome visitors from overseas and interstate with whom we can proudly, and with a great backdrop, share our story.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the Chief Minister’s statement on the exciting Darwin City Waterfront project. We have heard many great contributions, and the member for Brennan’s was very good in the way that he looked at the economic benefits that the project is going to bring. We have heard others talk about the probity issues. I would like to concentrate more on the heritage issues of the site.
The Northern Territory is a great place to live and Darwin is the best capital city in Australia in which to raise a family. The waterfront is a chance to build our future with vision and sympathy to the environment and it is something that the Martin government is doing with an eye to looking to the future. I am proud to take part in the process of the waterfront as something that our children and grandchildren and future generations to come will derive benefit from.
Cities are places to live and work in. They are shared by old, young, families, single people, workers, residents and visitors, and this waterfront represents something for all of us who use our city. It is through community ownership that the site of where it is proposed is cherished and will be looked after.
The waterfront is located in the heart of our city. It is an important site in Territory history. It is the first permanent settlement by non-indigenous people in the Territory. It is close to the site where the Overland Telegraph cable came ashore and it represents the beginnings of the city of Darwin. In fact, it was the township of Palmerston.
Close to where the waterfront project will commence are many heritage sites. One of the most significant of those is, of course, Knight’s Folly. John George Knight, who arrived in Melbourne from England in 1852, designed a number of public buildings in the Northern Territory and in Victoria, including Melbourne’s Parliament House, Customs House, and several other commercial buildings. He built what would basically be a mansion in those days around where the waterfront project is going to be. It was the first building in the Territory, and one of the first in Australia, to use concrete as a building material. It is very significant.
As with many other heritage sites in Darwin, over the years we did not hold our built environment too well in the Territory due to environmental factors such as cyclones, fires and white ants. Unfortunately, Knight’s Folly was one of those. It burnt down in 1933, and there was just a core of the building left. That was built on again, but it did not last through the night of Cyclone Tracy visiting Darwin, and it was blown away.
Around that waterfront area was hard industrial land deriving an economic benefit for the people of Darwin and the people of the Territory, but it was a bit of a blight on the eye. All the heritage sites did run into a bit of disrepair. Now, because of this waterfront project, we will see these come to life again and be available to the people of the Territory, Australia and the world to have a look at what took place here over the years of both European and Aboriginal settlement.
When we talk about the heritage there, we must always remember the World War II oil storage tunnels. They were constructed to protect Darwin’s oil supplies from bombardment during World War II. The tunnels extend from the waterfront area and run underneath the city. We heard in the Chief Minister’s statement about the need for us to proceed cautiously and search for unexploded World War II ordnance, and this really adds to the significance of these oil tunnels and what they mean. I am confident that as the waterfront precinct develops, we will see great interpretive signs not only in respect of our non-war years, to such things as Knight’s Folly, but also to the tunnels.
Of course, Goyder’s Camp is there as well. Many things happened in that area. It is fitting that with an eye to the future, the Martin government is also looking to the past to make sure that they have there, for future generations to come, a sense of history.
You can contrast that with the CLP’s approach to heritage. We are getting a convention centre, and we are restoring and holding on to our heritage for generations to come. Their vision for a heritage centre was to bulldoze one of the most tropical hotels outside of Raffles in Singapore. You cannot turn your back on that difference. When you have a look at this government’s vision for the waterfront, and compare it to the CLP government’s vision for the waterfront, I ask members to compare; the plans are there. It is quite easy to compare. Let people make their choices. I will stand on the Martin government’s vision for the waterfront project. I am really pleased to be part of it. I certainly would not be holding my hand up and saying things like: ‘I really prefer that last one with the great spire and the false island and the bridges across to Mandorah’. Talk about Knight’s Folly - I guess that would have been called Burke’s Folly in years to come if that had got up.
Mrs Miller: Just get on with your reply.
Mr KIELY: I will pick up on the member for Katherine’s interjection to just get on with it. We have been hearing interjections about rewriting history. Well, it is about time that you came face-to-face with the true history, and that is what the story is.
We are very fortunate that we now have a government with vision, we have a motivated private sector, we have a motivated public sector, to get behind with a vision to create something for the future for all of us while embracing the past. This is fantastic, and it is something we should get the opposition onside with it. It is just not good enough to say: ‘Oh yes, we support it, but …’. Get on board, get into this fantastic project. It is great, and it is going to be wonderful thing for all of the Territory. It is going to be a wonderful thing for all of Australia. In years to come, it will probably be as big a drawcard as the Melbourne and Brisbane developments of a similar nature.
We would be hard pressed to claim that it will ever be as iconic as the built environment of the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. However, for being this side of the Tropic of Capricorn, I believe it is going to be a fantastic development and we will certainly be the icon of the north. For many years now, I believe we have allowed Cairns to get the jump on us and they have been trying to steal the mantle as the capital of the north. I believe that we will manage that now, and we will certainly be a prime tourist destination for people to the north to come to, as well as our internal tourists who will be falling over themselves to come to Darwin.
There is also another great thing happening in town that I would like to draw into the waterfront development. People may think there is no link but I maintain that there is. At the waterfront development we are going to have the wave pool, great public spaces, 40% of the development there is going to be public spaces. We are going to have all season swimming lagoons, promenades, great cafs – it is going to be fantastic. The majority of the access will be free except for the wave pool. When we use the term ‘free’ it means no entry price. However, I can say to the family person that when you pack up the family and head to somewhere like this, nothing is free. By the time you get there and get around and access the cafs and restaurants and buy a few things here and a few there, you generally can find yourself out of pocket. Just going to the pictures these days you are something like $50 out of pocket before you even know it. It is really quick.
What this government is doing, with the development of Leanyer Recreation Park at the same as with the waterfront project going up, is a wonderful thing for the families of Darwin, Palmerston and the outer areas down to Virginia and even as far as Noonamah. The families will have the choice now. When they want to get out during the build-up, they will be able to go to Leanyer, or they will be able to go, if they want something more formal, into the waterfront development. So, you see, this government is all about offering lifestyle choices to the people of the Northern Territory. It is not about this being the only thing we have to offer. It shows the diversity of views and bringing the whole community in and improving, overall, our lifestyle options and choices for the people of the Territory. That is a huge statement and a great strength of the Martin Labor government.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say that people think of heritage as something in the past. Heritage is the physical and cultural remains of the people and the communities they build. It is fitting that the waterfront redevelopment is taking place in the heart of our city. We are creating history in building a heritage for the future with vision. I commend the Chief Minister and the officers of her department for their vision. I commend the members of government for getting right behind their Chief Minister on this exciting and vibrant project for the whole of the Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate. I made a commitment to bring all appropriate details - of course, there are some commercial-in-confidence details - about taxpayers’ expenditure into the waterfront project into this House. My statement was a long and, at times, complex one. I believe that meets the commitment that I made to brief the parliament about the complex details of what is a very complex project. There is no way you can get away from that. When some members say it is very complex project and ask how to understand the dollars, it is beholden on everyone in this House - and I know that government members have had a briefing - but also important for members opposite to have the briefing as well. I thank everyone for their contribution and I just go through some of the issues that were raised about the waterfront project.
The Opposition Leader started by saying: ‘I have not had a briefing, so I really will only do the best I can so far’. If you go back to estimates, I said very clearly to members of the opposition: ‘A briefing is available; we will organise it. Just ask us’.
Mrs Miller: We have tried to get a briefing but have not been able to get one.
Ms MARTIN: I believe the Deputy Opposition Leader protests a bit too much. If you want that briefing, you could have had it. There was a lot of time between the end of June and now to get that briefing. The first briefing we have been able to lock in to you is 21 September. The last briefing that was offered was a week before these sittings, and we were told that it did not suit the opposition. There are busy people who offer these briefings, and I do not think any member of the opposition or the Independents have taken those opportunities. We will make sure that the briefing is on 21 September. Sadly, many of the comments made about the statement and the details were from a position of not having had the briefing - nor, I suspect, having read any of the public documentations.
There is a whole pack of information that we have put out publicly since May. There are vast details on the web site. I challenge any member of the opposition to say whether they have picked up those details, whether they have actually read the pack of information that is publicly available, and whether they actually went to the web site. I suspect from the silence, no.
There is a lot of information on the public record and it certainly was galling during the election campaign to hear the then Opposition Leader say: ‘There is a waterfront project and all we have seen is a page-and-half of media release’, which certainly was misleading and inaccurate. There is a lot of information, and we were briefing people as soon as they asked. Many of members of the business community have been briefed, the media has been briefed, but the opposition just could not manage to get their times and their enthusiasm for this project together to actually have the briefing.
The Opposition Leader made a fairly short contribution to this debate and spent most of it saying: ‘Look, we support the waterfront project, do not say we do not support the waterfront project’, and then saying, ‘But, but, but’. That was a very distinctive feature of what we heard from all members of the opposition: ‘Look, we support this project, do not say we do not support this project, but ...’ What I found particularly galling from the Opposition Leader - and I would like to quote her on this, it is pretty much the quote I think she said: ‘Don’t expect us to have blind unquestioning faith in this project. We question your ability to actually manage this project. So therefore, while I say we support it, we have all of these buts’.
I say to the Opposition Leader: whose ability to manage this project are you questioning? We have a consortium in place that we have a financial agreement with, and they are building the key components of the waterfront development. Which bit of the project are we managing? If you had had the briefing you would have understood this. If you say: ‘We question your ability to manage the project’, are you questioning the ability of ABN AMRO - maybe they are; Toga to do the developments; Barclay Mowlem; Sitzler - fine Territory companies that are involved in this? The Opposition Leader said: ‘I question your ability to deliver and manage this project’. She might direct that to me here in the Assembly, but she is actually saying that very clearly to the members of the consortium. She is saying it very clearly to Hassells; to Connell Mott McDonald – who have doubled their work force to be able to deal with this project; to MKEA Architects - clearly you question their ability to do this - Rider Hunt; Knight Frank; all the other businesses who are involved in this consortium. It was a throwaway line from the Opposition Leader about us not asking them to have blind unquestioning faith.
Of course, we encourage questions. I have extreme confidence in the capability of the consortium to manage this project, and they have signed up to deliver this for Territorians. Of course, we will be working with them but they are the ones who will be building the community infrastructure, particularly Macmahons. Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem are the joint venturers for the convention and exhibition centre. I have a great deal of faith in them. So does the private sector. The only one who does not is the Opposition Leader. She does not have any faith …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister incorrectly quoted me, deliberately, I suspect. What I said earlier was that the opposition support does not extend to blind unquestioning faith in your government’s ability to manage this project properly. Get it right.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. If you feel you have been misquoted you can come and talk to me about making a personal explanation.
Ms MARTIN: The Opposition Leader has just clarified it. She questions our ability to manage the project.
Ms Carney: Your government’s. You. No one else. You.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order!
Ms MARTIN: The very valid point that this is a consortium made up of significant players around Australia and internationally who are actually doing that; they are building this waterfront development for Territorians. I say to the Opposition Leader, go out and tell ABN AMRO they are incompetent. Go out and tell Toga Group they are incompetent. Go out and tell Barclay Mowlem and Sitzler …
Ms Carney: Why do you say that based on what we said? Are you stupid or are you just being misleading?
Ms MARTIN: That is what you said. So, in a real …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw the personal comments about the Chief Minister.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the fact that the Chief Minister is being stupid, Madam Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is important in a reply to a statement like this that I respond to the words, the directions, the lack of confidence that the opposition is showing in this project. Even though you can sit here and listen to the Opposition Leader saying: ‘We support the waterfront project’, every aspect of what she said following that does not support it. It has this ‘but’ against it. Certainly, when you go back through some of the newspapers, very clearly here – it might not have been under the current Opposition Leader, but certainly under the previous leader, the member for Blain: ‘Scrap Waterfront Call’. That is what the then Opposition Leader stood in here and said very clearly in those early days - scrap it. The CLP had a better plan. A better plan that did not have any residential development. It certainly did not have a convention centre. It did not support a convention centre as part of this, and wanted to have wide open spaces with lots of car parking.
We knew what the CLP had in mind. However, you did not have support for this project when we first put it on public record; you did not have support for what was being proposed here and you did not have support for the convention centre being at the waterfront.
We have long memories on this side of the House. I am pleased that, in a begrudging kind of way, you are actually supporting the waterfront development …
Ms Carney: What is begrudging about it?
Ms MARTIN: It is begrudging because, as other members on this side said, every time members of the opposition mentioned the waterfront, it was ‘but’. ‘We support this project but we question your ability to do this, this and this’.
Ms Carney: Yes, I question you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I am quite properly saying that this is going to be built by a consortium so if you are questioning their ability, go and tell them. Tell them you do not have confidence in what they are doing.
The Opposition Leader, and I quote her on this, raised the issue of the local input into contracts for the waterfront project and said all the design work is carried out interstate, it may have a local shingle – this is not word for word – but the work will be done down south. I think she was particularly referring there to the convention centre. She also said of the mechanical airconditioning and ventilation that the contracts have gone interstate as well. She made these statements. She said that all the work is being done down south - that is, for the design of the convention centre - and that contracts for the airconditioning had gone outside the Territory as well; that a Brisbane firm had been awarded the airconditioning contract for the project and a local Territory company has been financially devastated by this decision. That is what the Opposition Leader said, and I will deal with that because it is not accurate. It is not the truth and, again, the Opposition Leader has her facts wrong.
I want to talk about the Local Industry Participation Plans because they are the key component of what is in the financial agreement that says 85% of work on the waterfront will be local, so that is both goods and services. There are separate Local Industry Participation Plans that apply to the construction of each of community infrastructure, the convention and exhibition centre, hospitality, residential/commercial elements of the project, and the ongoing operational phases of the convention and exhibition centre. They are targeted at 85% of expenditure on goods and services for each element of the project, and financial consequences apply for failure to achieve that 85% target. I suppose in a perfect world, you would say let’s get 100%. That is not realistic, but 85% represents good local content and we are going to make sure that happens.
Each LIPP also contains warrantable commitments in relation to the establishment of an office in Darwin, implementation of an employment and training plan, provision of a cumulative total of 10 scholarships over the period of development, and undertaking an economic study of the impact of the development. That is, the LIPP provides for contract packages to be prepared in consultation with a capability network so that local firms with appropriate capabilities are prepared to compete for work and can compete for work.
Compliance with the LIPP will be monitored through quarterly reporting by the consortium and auditing of local value calculation in accordance with the agreed criteria, and will be undertaken by the NTICN. I wonder whether the Opposition Leader has issues with that. Maybe when she has her briefing on the waterfront, she will understand more fully, but it is 85% over the project. There are different LIPPs for different elements of the project and they are warrantable. There are financial penalties if they are not met.
Let us look at the convention centre. The Opposition Leader said it is all being done down south, that there might be a shingle on a wall somewhere, but all that work is being done down south. I wonder where she gets her information …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I wonder where she gets her information, Madam Speaker. The design documentation for DCEC is a massive project; no doubt about it. It is massive. Local design firms led by Hassall Architects and Connell Wagner engineers are undertaking the bulk of the work locally. One hundred per cent of the engineering design for the marine works is being done in Darwin. That is 100% - it is not DCEC, but 100% of the marine work is being done in Darwin. One hundred per cent of the design engineering work for community infrastructure is being done in Darwin. Fifty per cent of the engineering design work for the Darwin convention and exhibition centre is being done in Darwin. The remaining 50% of that engineering design work is being done in Sydney because the capacity and expertise is not currently available in the Darwin office. Fifty per cent, that is 22 staff of the local Connell Wagner office are working full-time on the waterfront project, 10 new staff have been added directly due to the waterfront project. Fifty per cent of Hassell’s local staff are working on the waterfront project. Hassell’s local office is undertaking about 50% of the total design documentation for the DCEC and the community infrastructure. The remaining 50% is being undertaken by Hassell’s Sydney office, with the responsible designers being in Darwin on a weekly basis. The local office will gradually take up more of the work over time.
It is a great solution, a great outcome for a Territory company, that Territory company can build its capacity to do this work, done in conjunction with offices interstate.
That the Opposition Leader can come in and bag this process without getting the proper facts, without actually asking a question in a briefing about what is the situation, certainly exposes her ignorance, and certainly exposes, again, the fact that too often the Opposition Leader comes in here makes assertions and accusations based on no facts at all or based on suppositions that she has created. That is not the facts. It is simply not the facts that are actually happening when it comes to the community infrastructure and the Darwin convention and exhibition centre.
We also had the Opposition Leader getting herself into quite a state about the mechanical services, the airconditioners …
Ms Carney: Was it hysterical …
Ms MARTIN: Well, wound up and ready to go …
Ms Carney: … given that that is your buzz word for today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I ask the Opposition Leader whether she had actually asked Airducter whether they were happy that their name be mentioned in here …
Ms Carney: Oh, you patronising thing, you.
Ms MARTIN: I certainly ask the Opposition Leader whether she had actually spoken to them about putting their name onto the public record. It would be interesting to find out what was the case, because I suspect no. I suspect no …
Ms Carney: Oh, do you just?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: … that she had not asked this important Darwin company …
Ms Carney: I suppose journalists are creative.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: … whether it was okay …
Ms Carney: Is that so?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: I ask her.
Ms Carney: Oh, you are too cute by half.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: I am asking the question. You can answer it any time you like in the adjournment debate.
Ms Carney: You can ask me in Question Time tomorrow. Go on, if you have the courage.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! Cease interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Can I put some facts here …
Ms Carney: She is being very provocative, not to mention telling fib after fib.
Ms MARTIN: … Airducter, since the Opposition Leader has put this company’s name into this parliamentary debate, was referred to in the original tender as a preferred subcontractor. The original tender always had AE Smith as the design and construct contractor for the mechanical services and, as I understand, Airducter was aware of this.
AE Smith, which is, I understand, a Brisbane-based firm, is bound by the same local industry participation requirements as the principal consortium members. To date, no subcontracts have been awarded. Design documentation will have advanced in the next six weeks to call tenders for the various subcontracts. At this time, Airducter, as well as other Northern Territory subcontractors and suppliers, will be invited to tender for the works.
So, when the Opposition Leader says - and she might like to quote her exact words, but I have the tenor of them - that ‘mechanical, airconditioning and ventilation contracts have gone interstate as well’, again, the facts are wrong. Design work has gone, as been indicated by the consortium as a possibility all along, but the subcontracts will be let in six weeks’ time and Territory companies will have every opportunity to tender for those, and I hope they are successful. I certainly hope they are successful, because the consortium will be held to that 85% local for goods and services.
The Opposition Leader also said that ‘the Chief Minister has not yet released true value of the project, there are disputes about valuation of land’, implying that the true valuation of the land must be much higher and the Northern Territory taxpayers will be the losers, and raised the issue of whether the land had been rezoned and whether the Valuer-General’s valuation was based on a rezoning for this kind of development. I can confirm that the land we are talking about was zoned CBD back in 1998. There has been no change to that zoning. It is not a zoning for industrial use. It actually has a zoning for CBD usage. That was done when the CLP was in office.
As we have previously talked about, the Australian Valuation Office has provided advice that the land was valued at $26m. The implication in what the Opposition Leader was saying was that that was before it was actually rezoned for this kind of development; therefore, it would be a much higher evaluation. I just clarify that this advice was sought when tenders came in, and was based on a convention centre and associated commercial development of 1200 units. Therefore, the issue that, somehow or other, we are being deceitful and we are not getting an appropriate valuation on the land, is rubbish. That valuation of that land was based on this CBD development - it did include a convention centre and residential developments.
There were two options that we had in developing this land. We could have cut it up, developed it in a piecemeal fashion - and maybe that is what the Opposition Leader would have preferred us to do, so you did not necessarily get a coherent, coordinated development, but you chopped up bits of lands and sold it up as the market could take that kind of development. However, the valuation - let me make it very clear - is based on development of that kind.
I just wonder whether somebody could move an extension of time; if I could have another five minutes or so?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be granted an extension of time to conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you. I just want to make it very clear that, when it comes to the 25 ha of land, as the member for Brennan quite rightly said, 40% of that will be open space and, in fact, only 8 ha is for commercial development. There is a major piece with the convention centre, and 40% open space, so there is only 8 ha that is subject of whether we should have sold off piecemeal or do this overall development. We decided that we would do that overall development to get a coherent development, and it will be a staged over 15 years.
The return on that, in nominal terms over the 15 years of the development, is probably $200m based on our current land and property development. Therefore, we are not just getting a price for the land in the return we get to Territorians; it will be based on the gross sales. It is a property and land price that we then get 18% over the vast percentage of that residential development. It is a great deal. We will get a return to Territory taxpayers far in excess than if we had just sold the land. We could have done it the other way. This way, we get a coherent project, and a convention centre built before we could actually afford to have it because of the public private partnership.
I certainly hope, from the opposition’s point of view, that that has put to rest the questions that they are raising about whether we have value for land or whether we have just given it just away for nothing. No, we have not; the return is an excellent one. On average, you get between 11% and 15% in return on this kind of land. We are getting 18% for the vast majority of the development - and that is of gross sales. It is a terrific return and I congratulate all those involved in reaching financial close.
There was the issue of how much the environmental clean-up would cost. I provided that information in the statement. We have allocated $1m in 2005-06, based on the environmental impact statement that was done and our understanding of what the requirements would be. The statement also said, with an estimated cost of up to $10m over the time of the project. That includes an allowance for UXOs, unexploded ordinance.
I think the Opposition Leader also said that the Darwin City Council had rejected ownership of the wave pool. We never talked to Darwin City Council about running the wave pool. The wave pool has always been a commercial operation and is a very exciting part of the project. What we did talk to the Darwin City Council about was taking over the local government functions of the area. They decided, in their wisdom, not to do this, so we will establish a corporation to perform those local government functions. They will have to undertake them to the satisfaction of all those who live there. We hope that, over time, the Darwin City Council will take over those functions. It makes sense; however, initially they have said they do not want to, so we will do it.
As I have said in the statement, it will have $1m cost initially, and I outlined what the elements of that would be. You have various employees to be part of that and they will have to make sure that water quality and public infrastructures are kept to appropriate standards and we hope that it will be a cost revenue exercise and maybe, over time, the Darwin City Council will take it over. All elements of what they have to manage were identified in my statement.
We have a memorandum of understanding with the council about the interface issues between the waterfront and the municipal boundaries. An important part of that is the Avenue of Honour, but also how the waterfront roads and infrastructure will intersect with what council currently manages. Plans are well under way.
On the Defence issues, we are having very productive discussions and we are hopeful that they will be concluded within a reasonable time frame. They did not impact on the first stage of operations of the waterfront, and we will have a resolution of those issues, I would hope, in the next few months.
The member for Nelson was worried about Shoal Bay and what we dump there. The best and latest estimate for Stage 1 has been that approximately 5000 m of hydrocarbon impacted soil will be either removed from the site to Shoal Bay for treatment or remediated on-site and re-used on the project. A further amount of approximately 5000 m of hydrocarbon impacted soil will be treated in Stage 2. An amount of 4000 m of metal impacted soil will also be removed during Stage 2. I am assuming my figures is right at 4000 m2 not cubic metres. Those are the details and when you come for your briefing we will go through those in more detail.
Mr Wood: It would be cubic metres.
Ms MARTIN: I think it has to be cubic metres. I think my figure is potentially wrong, but the calculations, the costings, and the process is there. That is all being worked through right now. If you read the environmental report, there is nothing that is at the waterfront that is even anywhere near the kind of problems they had to deal with at Homebush Bay in Sydney, for example, which had some really solid contamination. This is not about rocket science environmental management. This is about known things; dealing with unexploded ordnance is what the Territory has done in past years when developing.
In terms of what hydrocarbons there is, with some of the products from the bulk loader over time from the Woodcutter’s mine, that is all known and we can deal with that quite appropriately. The best assessment at this stage is that it will cost $10m over that time. That is a known cost. The actual volume of soil to be removed will be directed by the auditor for contaminated land during the excavation works and we are confident we can deal with it well and effectively.
The member for Nelson also raised issues about today’s dollars over time. They are very complex. I do not back off from that ,but we did have the issue about whether you dealt with the cost over the years of the project or whether, to be able to do a fair comparison, you brought those costs back to today’s dollars. That is what we did. That is why we can say with great confidence the convention centre will cost, in today’s dollars, $150m. That includes - let me get the details of that - capital financing cost, maintenance operational support and incentive-based components. All that is wrapped up in a payment of $12m per year from 2008-09 when the convention centre starts. It is like a home mortgage. We are paying that from the start of the convention centre and it includes all those payments. We did want to have incentives in there so that the convention centre operators would be always looking for greater numbers to come to conventions, greater numbers of conventions; and so there is an incentive-based process. We have always been up-front about that: $12m from 2008-09 when the convention centre is up and running.
There are many complex issues about discount rates, how you arrive at those and, when you come for a briefing, I will have people who are a lot more expert than me about these financial matters to take you through them.
Mr Wood: Just keep it simple.
Ms MARTIN: When the member for Nelson says: ‘Keep it simple,’ the sad fact of the matter is that it is not simple. A public/private partnership is never simple. You have a raft of legal advisers, accounting advisers and probity auditors who are doing the complex work of this, looking at the sharing of risk.
We tried to bring it down to the most manageable numbers, which is why we came back to today’s numbers. However, the whole process of a public/private partnership is not a simple, straightforward one. The hundreds of hours of work that went into reaching financial close were very complex, very detailed and inevitably, a fair portion of it has to stay commercial-in-confidence. That is our public/private partnership policy; the same one that is used around Australia for these kinds of things.
We have been very up-front about the community infrastructure and those costs are certainly clearly articulated: a maximum price of $94.6m. It is a capital works project; we have just outsourced it. Macmahon will be doing it. I went through all the different components of the community infrastructure and was quite clear about that. That is locked into a price.
The convention centre is like getting a home mortgage. You pay it off over time and all those costs are incorporated in the $12m payment per year. We could have waited and done it ourselves, but you could not have had that happen at the same time as the community infrastructure. We would have had a convention centre sitting in the mud.
On balance, we have a great project. The finances are complex, but with $144m maximum of Territory money - probably a lot less - we have levered $850m worth of private sector investment in our economy, which means jobs, jobs, jobs and opportunities. The benefits from this waterfront project will be there for the Territory, for Darwin, for many years to come.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 18 August 2005.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I support the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage’s statement on the management of the Daly River. I strongly support the protection of the environmental, cultural and economic values of the Daly River and its surrounding catchment.
The Daly Region Community Reference Group has made positive inroads into identifying ways we can protect these values. The Community Reference Group presented its report to government in November 2004 and made 23 specific recommendations. Not all members of the CRG agreed with all of these recommendations but there was a sharing of various views about the best way forward. As the minister mentioned in her statement, it provided an opportunity for a diverse range of individuals to bring their views to the table with a genuine desire to ensure a sustainable future for the Daly.
The minister mentioned the importance of the Daly River to our iconic barramundi and of the river and surrounding wetlands in terms of their environmental value. These ecosystems also provide economic values, and the recreational fishing industry is a case in point. Recreational fishing is an integral part of our unique and envious lifestyle. It is estimated that one in every three Territorians go fishing; in some areas, it is closer to one in every two. Territorians spend $610 each on equipment and activities, or $27m in total. Visitors to the Territory spend an additional $8m. The most recent survey revealed that our recreational anglers spend more than 170 000 hours each year fishing for barramundi on the Daly River. Some of this effort takes place as part of our two world-class fishing tournaments, the Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals, which are held on the river between the Daly River Crossing and MoonBillabong outlet. Hopefully, next year, the member for Johnston and I will attend some of them.
Barramundi are caught, measured and released over the five days of each of these tournaments, which injects tens of thousands of dollars into the local economy. Of some interest, a major Queensland beverage manufacturer offered a barramundi fishing trip and accommodation on the Daly as the first prize for a national competition. This provided national exposure in promoting this competition.
Several fishing lodges along the Daly River support the recreational fishing industry. These businesses also assist river management through my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines’ River Watch program, a community partnership which was initiated on the Daly River. Two businesses have been established as River Watch centres to provide advice to and from the department to river users regarding aquatic environmental issues, and fishing and boating regulations.
In attracting visitors to recreational fishing, the Northern Territory leads the other states. We import about four times the fishing effort from interstate than we export. Fishing tour operators have a role to play in this. There are more than 130 licensed fishing tour operators in the Northern Territory and, in 2004, 27 operated on the Daly River. Approximately 1000 people per year visit the Daly River to fish with these professional operators. A number of fishing tour operators now base their operations on the river. The CRG mentions recreational fishing licences, but our opposition on this is well known.
Aside from the barramundi, there are other fish species which are important for indigenous people, including mullet, stingray, cherabin and turtle. The health of the Daly River and the management of recreational fishing are obviously important to protect these traditional fishing opportunities as well.
The Daly River has been closed to commercial barramundi fishing since 1989, but the river system supports commercial barramundi catches in and around Anson Bay, outside the mouth of the Daly River, and surrounding coastal areas. Commercial catches have increased. Changes in the Daly River will impact upon recreational and commercial fishing catches, so an improved river monitoring system will only benefit these industries.
In its report, the CRG notes the need for investment security, and that ecologically sustainable development requires a predictable management regime. Controls have been imposed on landowners in the Daly Region. These controls primarily affect producers in the Douglas Daly farm areas. Restrictions on native vegetation clearing have impacted on the development of the Stray Creek farms and the earlier farms, which did not have approved permits prior to November 2003.
Those families who have been affected by these restrictions have been involved in the process to date, and they should be commended for this. These same people are already developing their own adaptive management systems for farming enterprises, with $700 000 in support from the National Landcare Program plus in-kind support from Northern Territory government agencies and other organisations through the project steering committee. This project, started early this year, is now well advanced. These people are forward thinkers and their families will be around in the Douglas Daly for generations to come. They are the economic backbone of the region and sound environmental managers whose livelihoods depend on the health of the natural resources of the region. They will be delivered greater certainty through the sustainable development of the region.
Our Territory-wide position to cotton is well known.
While I cannot speak for indigenous people, I believe we should remember that the indigenous people who live in the Daly region are not opposed to development. They also have aspirations for their land. The Stray Creek farms would not exist if it were not for the Wagiman people. There is a future role for indigenous people in farming in the region. It may be through farming their land. This could include working on existing properties to get the skills they need to develop their own land as they wish, similar to the mentoring that takes place through our indigenous pastoral programs. However, it is up to them, and I hope the Aboriginal Reference Group will assist us in understanding and meeting their goals. Given that the Northern Territory pastoral industry is worth in the order of $300m per year, I hope that more indigenous land will be utilised for these purposes and in moving the Territory ahead.
There are 22 pastoral leases plus many farming enterprises in the Daly River catchment, centred around Katherine and the Douglas Daly. I will talk about the Douglas Daly farms as that is where much interest has been focused recently. Between the Douglas and Daly Rivers there are 21 freehold farms and the dominant activity is mixed farming based on cattle production for live export. Other mixed farming enterprises include hay, silage, crop and seed production. The farms range in size from 500 ha to 10 000 ha. Their total area is 100 000 ha, or about 2% of the Daly River catchment. Total irrigation in the Douglas Daly farm area is currently less than 250 ha. In 2002, the farms produced around $10m in cattle and agricultural commodities.
The typical stand-alone family property is at the lower end of this scale. One-quarter of the area of the Douglas Daly farms is cleared, and significant areas of it will never be cleared. As part of these clearing approvals, wildlife corridors have been established to link with the Daly River corridor. The cleared areas are developed with improved pastures, providing a forty-fold increase in production. Across the whole catchment, between 4% and 5% has been cleared, much of it being historical clearing which has regrown.
The minister talked about the Daly Region Community Reference Group’s visit some of these farms. One of the things that came out of that visit was surprise. Yes, that is right; the group’s members were surprised about what the farms looked like against what they heard. The group looked at a range of sites from uncleared blocks at Stray Creek, to recently-cleared land, and fully-productive farming systems with rotational cropping and grazing systems in place with careful water management. They saw sustainable dry-land farming systems, based on perennial grass-based pastures. These pastures contribute organic matter and improve soil structure whilst maintaining cover. What they did not see were large areas of exposed soil or wide-scale erosion. The former AFANT executive officer mentioned that he had been impressed with the landscape, and learned a great deal from the on-site visit. For these reasons, he arranged for the AFANT executive to visit the area, and meet with the landowners and pastoralists themselves.
Of course, these farming activities have had the benefit of 30 years of research and monitoring. New technology has been developed on the Douglas Daly Research Farm. The farm is known for its research into improved sustainable dry-land and irrigated farming systems. In the upper Daly, this expertise is also being used to provide technical support and advice to the Wagiman traditional owners, to assist them to make decisions about their own sustainable pastoral enterprise. This support will continue.
Some members may not be aware of the other roles of the Douglas Daly Research Farm; that it hosts most of its research activities centred on the Daly River, and has an important role as a controlled benchmark area for the surrounding region as well. For the last year, it has provided an operating base, as well as services and equipment, for biodiversity, conservation, water and sustainable agricultural studies by Canberra University, Australian Geographic, CSIRO, and Charles Darwin University. Other Northern Territory government agencies are also based there. Douglas Daly Research Farm, as a multi-user facility, will be a base for the community, and for the future research and monitoring activities for the Daly River that my colleagues spoke about earlier. I see an exciting future for it.
In the future for the Douglas Daly farms, the potential for expansion is widely recognised and accepted. An adaptive management framework will provide an opportunity to consider the best way forward and will provide greater certainty in the medium and longer term. For the period until the end of 2007, any expansion of new mixed farms has been put on hold.
In terms of the future for primary industries in the Daly River catchment, I am pleased to say that the outlook is bright. Price and demand for live export cattle, from which the highest proportion of farming production value is obtained, remains steady. Diversification on existing farms will add production in coming years. Similarly, horticulture production is steadily increasing.
Visitors will continue to visit the Territory and the Daly River to catch the elusive and iconic barramundi. There are significant opportunities across the range of primary industries on indigenous land, and we will continue to work with indigenous people to achieve their aspirations. I believe that all of these things point to primary industries remaining a key contributor to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of the Daly region in the future.
The development of an adaptive management framework is the way forward for the Daly River region, as we recognised that the ‘do nothing’ approach can be as damaging to the region’s interest as making the wrong decisions. I recognise that there has been business failures and mistakes made in the past. However, lessons have been learned from these experiences. An adaptive management approach, with its checks and balances and community involvement in decision-making processes, means that these mistakes will not be of the same scale or frequency. There is tremendous knowledge in the communities of the Daly region, and that knowledge must be utilised.
Therefore, I support an adaptive management framework for the Daly region, and my department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines will be closely involved in this development.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I speak in support of this important statement by minister Scrymgour on the management of the Daly River. The Daly is our most well-known river; it is our darling – pun intended. The Daly has the potential to be our major horticultural region if we get it right. It is our premier recreational barramundi fishing river. It is one of our major tourist destinations. For centuries, it has been the focus of the region’s Aboriginal customary economy. For decades, it has been used for pastoral and, more recently, intensive agriculture. Most importantly, it is an extremely delicate ecosystem which relies on a very particular balance between the inflow of nutrient rich sediments brought on by annual Wet Season rains and the chemical characteristics of the Dry Season limestone enriched groundwater flows. It is this special groundwater which causes these nutrient rich sediments to deposit rapidly.
Of course, we should look at using the natural resources of the Daly for sustainable agriculture but we must get it right, and that needs time and resources. When we talk about sustainability, we are talking about triple bottom-line sustainability. That is it must be economical sustainable, it must be ecologically sustainable, and it must be socially and culturally sustainable. These are complex interlinked issues that we need time to assess and get the foundation for sustainable use of this valuable resource right. That is why this government has rightly renewed the moratorium on land clearing until 2007 and reaffirmed the ban on damming the Daly River and on cotton growing.
Renewal natural resources, by their very nature, are dynamic, as are farming practices. Hence, to ensure that farming along the Daly is sustainable, we need an ongoing management system that is also dynamic; a system that is able to cope with the changing conditions of the Daly River and to cope with the ever-changing horticultural practices.
That is why the Daly River Community Reference Group stress that once a sound plan and sustainable foundation has been established for the future management of the Daly we should implement a process of adaptive management. This will allow management of this valuable natural resource to be finetuned and adjusted in the light of ongoing monitoring processes and operational experiences. It will also mean that our river management will not be reactive as past river management practices throughout Australia have been. Rather, it will be proactive and in line with changing horticultural practices and requirements. It will also be cognisant of the needs of the natural environment, as well as social and cultural expectations.
What is pleasing is that through this whole process there has been a strong commitment to open government for all Territorians, and this government has not succumbed to the pressures from those speculators who want open slather clearing or those apologists for the cotton industry. This process has been transparent and community engagement was paramount.
Furthermore, what this government has set in place for the Daly River will be the benchmark for the exciting Territory-wide Living Rivers program. As the MLA for the rural electorate of Goyder, I welcome this initiative because it will establish river health as a core goal. A healthy river provides maintenance for the full range of ecosystems and ensures that the natural resource and recreational value of our rivers is available for future generations. Surely, that is cause enough to support the government’s proposed management of the Daly River and endorse the Living Rivers program.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement on the management of the Daly River. Firstly, this issue of sustainable management of the Daly River catchment is of particular importance to me and my family. On speaking to this issue it is prudent to relate to our own lives and the lives of the people we know.
The Daly is primarily fed by the Katherine and Flora Rivers. The Katherine River flows from the east and starts in the escarpment of the lower plateau area of the Kakadu National Park and the Nitmiluk National Park. The Flora River starts in the west and is fed from its own catchment area and by the Mathison Creek.
My wife’s family have a 19 km property at the junction of Mathison Creek and Flora River. My young five-year-old daughter revels in pulling in bream, barramundi, turtle and, to a latter degree, sharks. My mother-in-law is also keen to get much sought-after magpie geese from her extended family on the Daly. My wife is also a mad fisherwoman and jumps at the chance to get a line wet in the area. We often visit a site on the Flora River which has a huge spring gushing water out of a cliff at the base of a massive fig tree. This water comes all the way from Mataranka, some 150 km away. This just shows the extent of the catchment of the Daly River.
The Daly River and its catchment is a focus of so much of the lifestyle of the Territory. It brings people together for economic, social and cultural reasons. It is a special place but unique to other parts of the Northern Territory, and that is why we need to get it right - right for our generation and right for future generations. This responsibility will help not only for Territorians but for all Australians. It is our duty and we must get it right.
We have and are studying this river system and this limited knowledge is shaping and educating the direction we need to take. There are stages in learning, they say. In the first stage, you do not know what you do not know. Then you know what you do not know, and then you know what you know. I believe we are in the middle: we have an idea of what we need to know to make the right decisions for the future. In learning, we need to reflect on the past, what our forebears did, and particularly in the Daly region, what they were thinking and what happened.
I would like to quote from an excellent publication on the Daly River. The book is titled The Spirit of the Daly written by Peter Forrest, published by the Daly River Community Development Association in 1994. It is an account of development on the Daly from page 7:
This highlights that it is difficult to manage and develop new and unique areas of Australia. Promoting, investing in and gathering more and better information is vital to the corporate knowledge of all new and existing uses of the region. We will not make the mistakes of our southern counterparts; we are going to get things right. We are not going to allow the same mistakes to be made that have happened in southern states; mistakes that have cost property owners their livelihoods, and which have forced governments to divert valuable government funds away from health, education and other government programs for the rehabilitation of their rivers.
Henry Lawson wrote a ballad called Slip Sliding. He described the Daly River as either a ‘muddy gutter’ or a ‘second Mississippi’. The Murray-Darling is a very different river from the Daly. Its catchment area, rainfall and water flow are very different, but it is the lessons on uses and agricultural development we can compare and from which we can learn. Holus-bolus development is economically and environmentally bankrupt. It is bad development. We are going to work with the community, with the various industry groups, and with the science as it becomes available and get it right. We will get it right now and guarantee the future for generations of Territorians, and ensure pastoral and horticultural producers a sustainable and productive asset.
We do not want to have the situation we have now in the Murray-Darling where governments are having to buy back thousands of gigalitres with taxpayers’ money and the lives of those who worked in businesses along that river have to be disrupted.
Traditional businesses in the Northern Territory are learning the importance of getting it right and learning from the science. I refer to a recent trip to a field day I attended in August this year at Pigeon Hole Station in the Victoria River region. The project there is called Grazing Strategies for Tomorrow. The pastoralists have quite often been beaten up for their current and past practices. The Pigeon Hole project is the largest grazing trial in Australia. The $5.4m project aims to develop grazing and infrastructure guidelines that improve economic performance whilst maintaining regional condition and minimising impact on the biodiversity. That is what I saw at Pigeon Hole. It was enlightening for me and the 200 or so other participants who attended. These people came from across the Northern Territory and were experienced, knowledgeable practitioners in the pastoral industry.
One outcome was that if you flog out a bit of country in one year, it will not produce for you in subsequent years. If you manage it to a sustainable level each year, it will produce each year for you. Many pastoralists have known this for many years, but now the science and the studies can prove it. Mrs Janet Holmes Court, who owns Pigeon Hole and a lot of country down that way, stated, when referring to the state of Pigeon Hole Station, that it must be in as good a condition or better when her grandchildren or their children own the property. She wanted to look after the land for both economic and environmental reasons, and there were definite synergies in these two aspirations. As another speaker from the Meat and Livestock Association stated, you cannot have productivity without sustainability.
I was particularly taken with one of the project’s principles, and that stated that innovative management systems that are underpinned by sound scientific research and rigorous commercial evaluation will underwrite the future sustainability of the northern pastoral Industry. This statement could also fit so easily with the vision we have for the Daly. If we are moving to get it right in the VRD pastoral industry on purely economic terms, we must be able to get it right on the Daly.
We are going to get this process right in the Daly, and we are going to show the rest of Australia how to do it. I personally hope that we can roll this process, and the government structure, out to other river systems in the Northern Territory. The Victoria River springs to mind, as does the Adelaide River and the Fitzmaurice, all of which are in my electorate. This parliament is custodian of these rivers for future generations. I personally want to be remembered as an elected member who advanced development and protected the integrity of this river system.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. Listening to all members, last week and today, just goes to show what an important place the Daly is and why this government would certainly like to move very cautiously on development and invest substantially in further monitoring and research.
I have heard from members how important the Daly is for our great lifestyle. We heard from the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries that we have some of the best fishing in Australia, and how it holds immense cultural value for indigenous people, how the biodiversity of the wetlands and our unique environmental values of the Daly are of national and international importance. Just as importantly, I have heard how members, quite rightly, talk about the people who live and work in the Daly region, about their aspirations and how the natural resources may be used for future prosperity. Certainly, these views are shared overwhelmingly in the community.
I will pick up on a few issues raised in the debate. Firstly, the member for Katherine, when she spoke last week, suggested that we have acted with unnecessary panic by imposing the moratorium. With the position we have taken, if this is panic then future generations will thank us for it. I have already indicated that the decision to continue the moratorium was not taken lightly by government, and I say it again: these restrictions will not stay any longer than absolutely necessary.
Agriculture already has a presence in the Daly, and it will continue to do so. It is valued for the contribution it makes to our economy. However, only this government will ensure that it operates against the highest environmental standards. As the minister who has carriage of that, I certainly have a commitment to make sure that happens, as did my predecessor, the member for Johnston, and the Chief Minister. There has been total commitment from all ministers who have shown leadership in relation to this.
We need to move very cautiously on development of the Daly. Better research, monitoring and compliance arrangements, which government will put in place, is absolutely necessary before we consider further land clearing. It is the responsible position to take, and it is overwhelmingly supported in the community. I would just like to let you know, member for Katherine, that if the CLP had formed government at the last election we know that the moratorium would have been lifted right now. That was something that was mentioned through the election. Land clearing would be occurring before the research and monitoring systems were in place. After the research and monitoring is in place, some further clearing will, no doubt, occur, but only against strict sustainability principles, and controlled under the toughest land clearing controls in Australia, which we will introduce.
Regarding cotton, this government’s position is clear. It was a position that we reaffirmed during the election: we will not approve cotton. I can tell you that the community is right behind us. No one has been knocking on my door - and I am sure the member for Johnston’s, who had this portfolio previously - saying: ‘You have it wrong, please bring cotton to the Territory’.
In terms of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and Catchment Authority - an issue raised by the member for Nelson - I would like to inform the member that government is moving quickly to establish the committee. However, let me reassure all members that it will include a broad cross-section of community representation. That is very important, and we saw that through all the consultations that have been held.
In getting the right representation from the different groups, the committee will include an independent chair; non-indigenous landowners; indigenous landowners supported by an Aboriginal reference group of traditional owners; representatives from indigenous associations with interests in resource management and economic development in the region; representatives from industry associations, commercial, tourism and recreational interests; and government representatives with expertise in water management, conservation, land use, planning and regional development. Key tasks of the new committee will be to make recommendations to government on the allocation of natural resources and adjustments that may be necessary under the adaptive management framework; oversee implementation of the monitoring and reporting arrangements; and annually review implementation of the regional land and natural resource management plan.
Government will not be immediately taking up the CRG’s recommendations for a catchment management authority. This would take a longer time to legislatively implement than government’s proposed arrangements. This, however, does not mean that the recommendations made by the CRG will be ignored. They stand alone and do not require a catchment management authority to be delivered. Most will be acted upon by government with the advice of the new advisory committee.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of gamba grass. Gamba grass and other weeds are a problem in the Daly, as they are elsewhere …
Mr Wood: We can grow gamba, but we cannot grow cotton. I am not sure of the logic there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You talked last week and I sat and listened in total silence. All right?
Mr Wood: You promised …
Dr Lim: Touchy, touchy.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You have raised a number of issues. You have asked …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members for Nelson and Greatorex, please allow the minister to complete her statement.
Mr Wood: It goes back to the …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think that the member for Greatorex had some red jelly beans this morning, because he has been jumpy all day ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you not to rise to the bait.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Wood: It was a pleasant interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am attempting to answer the member for Nelson’s concerns that he raised when he was talking. I am sure he would like to hear the response, if he could.
Gamba grass and other weeds are a problem in the Daly as they are elsewhere across the Top End. The cost and benefits of some improved pasture species do require a closer look and that is why we will be referring this issue to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. Gamba grass currently occupies about 5% of its potential range if left unchecked. It is very important we look at it urgently before the problem gets any bigger. I would also like to make the point that, like any land management activity, our efforts on weeds will only be as good as the resources that we as a community put in. Improving the viability of agricultural enterprise in the Daly is one way to get better investment in weeds management. Speculative, unsustainable, agricultural pursuits will make our weed problems worse. There is a fine balance to be struck.
In terms of the Water Act, the recommendations from the CRG that the role of the control of waters be redefined was mentioned during that debate. The government indicated during the recent election that we will be reviewing all of our environmental laws and specifically redrafting the Water Act. The CRG’s recommendations will be looked at during that review.
Regarding your comments about adaptive management, member for Nelson, I want to clarify our approach on adaptive management. When you spoke, you seemed to be asking why we cannot implement it now and do away with the moratorium. All I can say to you is that the extra research - and this is really important - and the monitoring we will be putting in place is essential to make adaptive management work. Without it, we have no way of picking up whether we are overstretching the natural resources and need to pull back. Adaptive management is more than just moving cautiously forward; it is about having the systems in place to monitor the results of management and the capacity to adjust management decisions in the light of this information. The moratorium will provide time for these systems to be put in place.
On boat licences, which you also raised, the CRG certainly did recommend some form of licensing for boats and fishermen. This is not a recommendation that government will be picking up.
The CRG has done some great work and it has reported to government, and we have released the report for the community to see. It is not necessary to seek public comment on the report; it is the community’s report to government so it is their report. We have looked at it closely and made our response. Of course, there will be further community involvement because this government is putting the community first on the Daly and that is why we will be establishing the Daly River Management Advisory Committee.
To wrap up, I would like to thank all members. It has been a good debate and some of the issues that have come forward will certainly be taken into account as we implement government’s groundbreaking approach to protecting one, and it is only one, of our many great natural assets.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spoken previously in this House about Mr Barry Levarde who is a constituent of mine. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to mention all the things that Barry is involved with. Basically, there are two things that he is involved with. He trains Aboriginal people in remote communities in the use of chainsaws, tree felling and advanced training in problem trees, and trees in confined spaces such as near buildings. I will talk a little more about that. However, he has also been a long time member of VISE, the Volunteers for Isolated Student Education.
Barry retired in 1990. He reckons that retirement means doing what one wants to do, not what one has to do. He has a fairly strong belief that any work available in Aboriginal communities should belong firstly to the community workers, and bringing in an outside contractor takes money out of the community and jobs from people. It is a fairly simple formula that Barry has.
Basically, he goes around various communities and he has trained crews in Nhulunbuy, Warruwi, Milingimbi, Oenpelli, Jabiru, and many outstations including Patonga Homestead, Mudginberri, Patonga Airstrip, Spring Peak and Mamukala.
Barry is very closely involved in that and has been involved in lopping some fairly dangerous trees, particularly a giant mahogany out at Alyangula. This particular tree was declared ‘scary, dangerous and high risk’. Barry worked with what is known as the RMS crew, or the Rehabilitation and Mine Services Crew. The GEMCO management team decided that a high-risk tree needed to be removed and this particular tree in Nuwangur Street should be the first to go. Barry had been on Groote Eylandt for two weeks, taking nine new members of the RMS through their basic Chainsaw Tree-felling and Advanced Tree-felling certificates. The last three days of the course would present no greater challenge to the newly skilled operators and the battle hardened old heads of the mine services team.
I will take up the description by Sean Milfull, who I think works with GEMCO. He said:
Then he went on to say:
That is one element of what Barry does. I know all those communities that I mentioned before work well with Barry and they respect him. He does a great job.
Now onto Volunteers for Isolated Student Education: as noted, Barry and his wife, Elizabeth are long time members of VISE. It was formed in about 1990 in the Territory and supported by the Tennant Creek Lions Club. VISE provides over 300 volunteer teachers who go to remote properties and communities to assist with student education. VISE has also provided at least three tutors each year to assist at the Northern Territory Rural College. Well known former Headmaster George Murdoch and his wife are currently in residence for the eighth year. Retired people come from all over Australia to offer their skills and support for students, particularly those in isolated regions of the Territory. It is a fantastic scheme.
In an extension to this service, with a funding grant from the Northern Territory government, VISE has organised a trial at the remote Warruwi community on Goulburn Island. Volunteer Harry Price has travelled from his home in Launceston to stay in the community for three months and pass on skills such as welding and carpentry learned over a lifetime. This is not training in the accepted sense, but rather an exchange of knowledge. In return, Harry gets to experience the reality and culture of community life.
Harry reports on his experience:
I believe that illustrates that Harry certainly made a constructive contributed to Warruwi. My adjournment tonight illustrates my constituent, Mr Barry Levarde, has connections right throughout the Northern Territory, right to the electorate of Arnhem and Alyangula, and over to the electorate of Arafura and the island of Warruwi. The Northern Territory, in a way, is a big place but it is also a small place and it is these connections that make the Territory so special. It means that people can actually get along and do things if they have the right spirit and the right dedication. The volunteers in VISE have that application and desire to try to support and help. I am sure they are very welcome in the communities that they go to. I commend their work to this House.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the most talked about issue in Katherine, and I would no doubt think other regional areas across the Northern Territory, is antisocial behaviour. I will include under that heading, crime and domestic violence as well. The reason I say that it is the most contentious issue is that in the 16 years I have lived in Katherine, antisocial behaviour has not been off the agenda in any shape or form in that time. It has not significantly improved, and that is despite numerous programs being implemented and countless hours put into committees by well meaning and concerned residents.
People who are trying to make a difference come from a wide section of the community and have been a mixture of public servants, business people and concerned citizens. There have been countless ideas put forward, and many long discussions, some of them heated, about what is the best way to reduce antisocial behaviour to make our Katherine community a place where everyone can live in safety, as well as not be exposed to some of the less desirable experiences that unfortunately occur too often.
It is all well and good for some to say we have to have empathy for the disadvantaged, and that we also have to consider the less than satisfactory domestic situation of some of our troublesome offenders. The point missing from all that is there are thousands of Katherine residents who are disadvantaged by a relatively small number of offenders, and those thousands of residents who have chosen to live in Katherine deserve to be treated better. It is grossly unfair.
The Community Harmony strategy that was launched in Katherine was hailed to be the answer to all our problems, albeit that it would take some time to get some of the programs up and running, and we expected that. The Return to Home strategy, for all intents and purposes, was meant to return stranded people to their communities and alleviate the problem in rural centres like Katherine. Well, I can still walk down the street and see the same faces who still cause the same problems so, in essence, that has not resolved the problem.
The Kalano Community Patrol, which I talked about in my adjournment last week, has limited authority. It was to be the support for the police to be able to address antisocial behaviour. Over the years the Kalano Patrol has been operating, they have been criticised many times for their ineffectiveness. Last year, they received funding of around $500 000 to operate, and with extensive training from retired police commander, Maurie Burke, and coordinator, Des Buckerfield, their skills were improved considerably and they were trained to be a supportive role to the police in the community. At their peak, the Kalano Patrol had 13 staff on roster. This was an expensive service, but was encouraged as being supportive to the police, and did have some positive results and was continuing to show positive results.
The biggest problem with the Kalano Patrol is that it has no teeth to really get the job done. There is no authority for patrollers to tip out grog or remove drunks to a safer place, when they are incapable of making any decisions for themselves. If this government is really serious about outcomes, those two things alone will make a huge difference. In spite of the limited authority for the patrol, they were able to move about 13 camps from around Katherine during the last 12 months. That was through talking to the itinerants concerned and explaining to them their options. Some chose to go into available housing, while others chose to go home to their communities.
In this year’s budget, government has cut funding to community patrols and, in Katherine alone, that funding has been cut by half to just over $200 000. This has, naturally, resulted in staff losses and low morale for the patrol. I wonder how this government, which tells us over and over how serious they are about tackling antisocial behaviour, are going to replace this service? Can you please tell me why you would want to do that when there is a well-trained group in Katherine under the supervision of Des Buckerfield, who have taken great pride in their role and who have become very effective, and who would be even more effective if they were given the authority to tip out grog and remove drunks to a safer place? This government said it was going to do something about antisocial behaviour. The two things I have mentioned earlier will go a long way towards helping the police and patrol workers.
It is interesting to note in the last police annual report it was reported there were 19 000 drunks last year across the Northern Territory. Five years ago, there were 11 000 reported drunk cases. My maths tells me clearly that government policy has failed. The Country Liberal Party proposed legislation for habitual drunks in November 2003. This was canned by government in sittings at that time, and then revived by Labor prior to the last election. Government has had two years to bring in their own legislation, but we are happy for them to use the proposed legislation that we first put forward. Just get organised and do it.
While talking about the alcohol aspect of antisocial behaviour, I would like to put on the record again the frustrations of one very committed Aboriginal lady in Katherine, Sheila Millar. I am proud to say we have the same surname, although spelt a little differently, and we are also proud to call each other sisters. Sheila is a trained social worker, skilled in rehabilitating alcoholics. Sheila will not mind me saying that she was a chronic alcoholic for 24 years. When she realised that she could do more for her people by helping her brothers and sisters lead meaningful lives through being sober, she trained at Batchelor College and gained a Diploma of Education in Science in Drug and Alcohol and is a qualified counsellor. Upon gaining that knowledge and wisdom, Sheila set out to give back to her people by helping them. She established a healing place at Dillinya, which is near Delamere, 231 km south of Katherine off the Top Springs Road. The community is on 200 km2 of land, with a community area of 4 ha, and consists of seven fully-furnished houses with essential services of power and water.
Sheila has been so committed to helping her people that, for the first few years, she struggled along with no financial assistance to get Dillinya up and running. When I found out what she was doing at Dillinya, I approached the government through our local member, Mike Reed, to give her some assistance. He and Tim Baldwin agreed to visit Dillinya and inspect the area just to assure themselves of what she was doing out there. For the following 12 months, the Country Liberal Party government funded Dillinya through Anglicare, which freed Sheila to concentrate on what she does so well – working with and helping alcoholics to regain their self-esteem and culture.
It was unfortunate that, when Labor came to government in 2001, they did not recognise the value and success of what Sheila was achieving and cut the funding to Dillinya. Since that time, Sheila has continued her struggle to get the recognition and funding she deserves. She has moved into Katherine to work, and returns to Dillinya at every opportunity to help the people who still live there.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this reporting document on Dillinya Cultural Healing Camp.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER: I still cannot comprehend why government has not recognised the expertise that Sheila has and the success rate she has achieved. She understands the needs of Aboriginal people – she is one of them. She speaks and understands numerous dialects. It is understandable that she is sick and tired of political discussions and debates that do not include Aboriginal people who can speak for their people.
Sheila has always advocated that what we have in Katherine is just a band aid: a sobering-up shelter and now a rehab centre. We need a sobering-up shelter but then habitual drunks should be sent to a detox unit as they are still intoxicated before being sent to the rehab centre. Most importantly, from a rehab centre they need to have somewhere to go and something to do or else the cycle just starts again. Sheila Millar never stops speaking out trying to help her people but she still is not being listened to.
I encourage this government to take the time to go to Katherine and listen to this woman. She knows what she is talking about. I certainly live in hope that the report that I have tabled tonight will be given serious consideration by government. I would strongly encourage you to talk to her at your earliest convenience and get the evidence of her healing camp for yourself. We all constantly talk about what needs to be done to help our indigenous people in this area and we have someone in Sheila Millar who has all the skills and is desperately trying to help her people with only her resources. Please give her some assistance and encouragement. I will have to continue the rest of this tomorrow night.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a problem that has arisen in my electorate. It is in regards to the noise level emanating from the power station in Alice Springs that has been generated by the jet turbine.
You will recall, at the end of last year, the then Minister for Essential Services, the member for Johnston, was very loud in his praises that we were getting this new jet turbine which will generate so much electricity for Alice Springs; we will have great buffers from now on and we will not have to worry about brown outs and power failures and all that.
I would have thought that when a utility such as Power and Water purchased any equipment, it would have looked at specifications. It would have checked out all the specs and determined how much electricity it can generate, what sort of noise level – I have lost five minutes in one minute - how much noise it generates, how much nuisance it will cause the community.
I think it was in November last year when the generator was installed, and here we are eight months since then and, to date, Power and Water has yet to resolve the consternation and disturbance it has caused through the community. Today on radio, several people rang up to complain about the noise. People cannot put up with that sort of noise forever. Fortunately, it is winter and you shut the house up fairly tightly to try to keep the heat in, so you can, to some degree, block some of the sound out. But come summer - and it is coming along pretty soon - doors and windows will be left open. How are these people going to tolerate this level of noise? It is a jet turbine that is creating this noise and the reckoning of some observers of the noise level is that is in the order of up to 85dB. That is a very loud noise - very loud.
I am told that the jet turbine is used in other countries within residential areas and they do not seem to have caused many problems there. Perhaps it is because those countries which use those turbines have built very adequate sound barriers, dampening mechanisms, to ensure that the sound is not spread all over the community.
The power station sits between the suburbs of Sadadeen and the golf course. The golf course area, particularly Range Crescent and the houses along that crescent, back into the hill that is supposed to shelter the sound that comes from the power station. Sadadeen is an area that is quite exposed to Hidden Valley Power Station. These people have put up with the noise for a long time now, and I am surprised to see that the Power and Water Corporation has just decided to put some noise measuring meters around the place to determine what the problem is.
How long does it take to determine whether this turbine is generating enough noise to disturb the neighbourhood? Neighbours complained. It is not one person in the neighbourhood; several people rang up. One person had just come back from holidays and heard this noise and wondered what the heck it was. She was soon to discover that the noise was coming right through the front door from the power station.
There was a comment made by someone who appears to be pretty cluey about power generation. He spoke about the same type of power generators being already installed at the Brewer Estate some 25 km from Alice Springs. That is the sort of distance you want to put something that creates so much noise. Put it out there. Brewer Estate was created for that and it would have been an ideal situation to put it there than putting it right smack in the middle of town.
If this noise continues - and it sounds like it will - I suggest to the minister that he may want to seriously consider shutting this turbine down for the time being until the consultant arrives from wherever he or she comes from. Shut it down and go back to the old generators for now and at least return the neighbourhood to the quietness that it had before the turbine was commissioned. The other generators are still there. They are all gas powered, so they can get the old machinery up and running one more time to ensure that the power supply is uninterrupted. In the meantime, they can work out what they can do with this turbine.
Maybe they need to look at what was done overseas to ensure that the appropriate buffers or sound dampeners are built around this new generator. All of us in Alice Springs appreciate the continuous supply of electricity that a community of that size should have. We are not saying that we should not have good and reliable generation of power, but not at the expense of people trying to sleep at night. That is the biggest concern: at night when everything is quiet and still and in the middle of winter, especially when the air is quite dense, any noise such as that created by a jet turbine will be transmitted far and wide. That is the major concern.
I will be going out in the night when I return to Alice Springs after the sittings to monitor the sound for myself. It is not good enough that people are forced to put up with this sort of thing. The person I mentioned who I said might be a bit cluey about power generation suggested that this noise would spread at least a mile. If that is the case, it is a fairly long distance in radius.
Minister, I note that you are listening to what I am saying. If you have any information to provide me, I look forward to listening to what you have to say. If not, I ask you to look at this urgently. The people of Sadadeen and the Golf Course Estate would like to have their quiet ambiance back in their homes for the remainder of this winter. The sooner you can fix that up the better.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I mark the life of a great Australian and a true friend of many people in the Northern Territory. Sir Ronald Wilson AC KBE CMG QC LL.M LL.B, died on 15 July in Perth after a long illness. Sir Ronald was a distinguished Australian lawyer, judge and social activist, serving on the High Court of Australia between 1979 and 1989, and as the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission between 1990 and 1997.
Sir Ronald is probably best known as the co-author with Mick Dodson of the Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from the Families, looking into the Stolen Generation published in 1997, which led to the creation of a National Sorry Day and a Walk for Reconciliation across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000 with 400 000 people participating.
The National Inquiry investigated the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families and their communities. Sir Ronald and Mick Dodson visited every state in Australia over a 17-month period and heard testimony from 535 Aboriginal people with 600 more making submissions. Sir Ronald wrote after the completion of the report:
While I did not know Sir Ronald very well, I met him several times through my connections with the Uniting Church, of which he was a former national President. In 1999, prior to my being a member of parliament, Sir Ronald travelled to Darwin to speak at a forum which I helped organise for the Northern Territory Council of Churches looking at mandatory sentencing for property crime in the Northern Territory. I still remember how he rose to his feet and spoke passionately and convincingly of the injustice of mandatory sentencing both on a legal framework and an ethical one. I know he convinced many people that night that mandatory sentencing was unjust.
Sir Ronald was a short man but, somehow, he seemed a man of great stature when he spoke. I heard him speak several times on the Stolen Generation, both here in Darwin, in Sydney and also in Adelaide. I remember how his simple and honest delivery left many people in his audiences in tears.
He died as he lived - a simple, decent and caring man whose family, in typical Sir Ron-style, refused a state funeral, undoubtedly knowing that he would not have liked the fuss. I would like to read the eulogy delivered by the Reverend Dr Dean Drayton, the President of the Uniting Church of Australia, as I believe it epitomises the life of Sir Ronald well:
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, last Saturday I attended the Pesona Indonesia 2005. It was a cultural extravaganza that was held in conjunction with the Darwin Festival.
As this event was also timed to coincide with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of Indonesian independence, an extra special program was developed. With the assistance of funding provided by the government’s Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, the organiser of Pesona Indonesia, the members of Persatuan Indonesia Darwin Incorporated, were able to sponsor several talented performers to come to Darwin to show off the various cultures that are within the Indonesian Archipelago.
Groups that performed at the event included the Meta Bubaya Group from Solo in central Java; Riki Marta, a dance group from East Sumba with their own musicians provided traditional music; Trio Marengko, a talented group from Ambon – Darwin’s sister city; and Pencak Silat Group, a group of seven artists from Melbourne who came to showcase traditional Indonesian martial arts. Adding to this great line up were talented local performers included Jolanda George, a Territory girl who is a beautiful and renowned Indonesian dancer.
I want to thank the Indonesian community and the many members of the Consulate of the Republic of Indonesia who worked so hard to put together this fantastic night of authentic and traditional Indonesian dances, music and food. Unfortunately, I was not very well on the night and was not able to stay very long. However, for the time I was there and from the reports that I have heard, a great time was had by all who attended.
On 15 August, the Indian community celebrated the Indian Independence Day which is celebrated every year on that date. At the stroke of midnight on 15 August 1947, India moved into becoming an independent republic and the President, then the first Prime Minister, of India, Nehru, read out his famous speech proclaiming India’s independence. And I quote Nehru here:
That moment ended centuries of British colonial rule. The land was no longer the summer retreat of British sahibs who fancied its spices, shikar, elephants and snakes charmers. Independence was also the end of nearly a century of struggle for freedom, battles, betrayals, and sacrifices. It also created a situation where people now were responsible for themselves. It also created the second biggest republic in the world, the Republic of India. India has now moved from a third world country to an industrial and IT giant with its own space program, its own nuclear program and it is advancing very rapidly to a first world country, a country that a few years ago was a third world country.
Another fantastic and colourful event that I have attended this month was the annual dinner dance of the African-Australian Friendship Association. This association was formed only six years ago to provide support and a socially and cultural base for the growing African community of the Northern Territory. The association has a goal to add an African flavour to the culture of the NT. I can honestly say that this was very much achieved that night with good food, exciting music and some very vibrant and talented dancers.
The Executive Committee of the African-Australian Association of the NT includes the president, Mr Charles Pitia, and Ron Smith, Casmel Taziwa, Mack Mchawala, James Justo, Mille Mogga, Fezile Mphele, and Stanford Jubane. Some of the divisional associations that were presented in the night were the Liberian community, the Somalia and Congolese communities, the African Refugee Communities, the Sudanese community, and the West African Union. The African Association dinner dance took place here in Darwin, and where else? At the Cypriot Hall, as it happens.
Some of the events that will happen this week, and they are significant events: first time for a long time is the Taste of Italy Festival. That will be held at the Italian Sport and Social Club on Saturday, 27 August from 3 pm until 11 pm. There is a great program of music, cooking demonstrations, a spaghetti eating contest and lots of fun and, of course, soccer. Another event is the 9th Barrio Fiesta which will be hosted by the Filipino Club in Darwin at the Filipino Community Hall. My colleagues have attended past Barrio Fiestas and they know that it is a great event. They have fantastic music, great food and there is always San Miguel beer, the favourite beer in Philippines.
I will take the opportunity to speak about a very important person in the electorate in Casuarina and also a very good friend. I would like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of one specific person, not associated with a multicultural group as such but who has represented and worked for the whole of the Territory with distinction. I refer to Mr Anthony ‘Tony’ Williams, currently the acting sergeant at the Casuarina Police Station which is in my electorate. Tony has been a police officer in the Northern Territory since 1997. He spent the first three-and-a-half years in Katherine Police Station, the next two-and-a-half years in Pine Creek Police Station and the last three years in Casuarina Police Station. He has been in charge of foot patrols for the past 10 months.
Tony Williams is an extraordinary police officer, who is extremely hardworking and likes to get the job done. Since Tony began working in the Casuarina district we have had the opportunity to work together to alleviate problems in my electorate and he has become a good friend. Tony and his patrol officers are frequent visitors to my electorate office. Tony’s excellent leadership qualities and proactive nature are a credit to his profession. His team of foot, bicycle and motorbike officers are one of the main reasons for the decline in antisocial behaviour, itinerant concerns and crime in general in and around the Casuarina area. Tony is highly regarded by his peers. He was recently nominated by one of his peers as a contender for the Australian of the Year and I can see why.
I would like to mention a couple of Tony’s heroic deeds whilst working as a police officer. During Tony’s time in the Pine Creek police station, Senior Constable Chris Bentham and Tony were called out to a motor vehicle accident. The accident involved a car carrying a mother and her three children that had fallen into the Edith River. As soon as Chris and Tony arrived at the scene, they immediately dived into the river and worked furiously to try to find the children which, tragically, they were unable to do. I am sure we all remember that terrible time.
Tony was involved as a volunteer helping at the Bali bombings. Tony happened to be holidaying in Bali when the bombings occurred. He immediately offered his services the next morning at 8 am after the tragedy and was assigned the running of the morgue in Denpasar on his own for three days. He worked non-stop to try to identify approximately 90 bodies that were brought in from photos on passports to give families some closure.
I take this opportunity to thank Tony and all the police officers at the Casuarina Police Station for their dedicated effort and hard work in looking after the Casuarina district. I congratulate Tony and wish him good luck with his nomination for Australian of the Year.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to send my best wishes to a prominent member of our Territory’s Chinese community, a great character, a long-time local and a good friend, Mr Eddie Quong. Eddie is still in Royal Darwin Hospital 10 weeks after suffering a serious car accident. Greta, his wife, who was in the car with him, was over three weeks in both the public and private hospitals and is now recuperating at home waiting for her ‘old man’ to come home and give her cheek once again.
Eddie turned 80 years old last Friday, a significant and auspicious birthday for the Chinese. Although the family were together, I understand that it was a very low-key celebration and that a belated party will be held when he is once again on his feet.
When I first met Eddie a few years back, I was absolutely astounded when he approached me and, in fluent Greek, greeted me and then swore at me. When he was younger, he worked at the building of the Greek Church and the Greek Hall and, of course, working with Greek builders, he learnt to say a few words in Greek - many other words in Greek, too! Eddie’s favourite ditty is:
Get well soon, Eddie and Greta. Hopefully, we will be celebrating your 81st birthday together with a bigger celebration. I hope I will see you soon, back home.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I congratulate Manunda Terrace Primary School for hosting the annual Monster Auction on 6 August at the Filipino Community Hall.
The auction had more than $16 000 worth of donations from local businesses, with some 160 items up for auction. It was a really enjoyable afternoon. The local families gathered together in the hall. The school had food and drink stalls. Many children were running around enjoying things such as throwing water bombs at various teachers who had their heads poked through holes. It was a really enjoyable afternoon with many activities for the kids.
The auction always starts with a children’s auction. It is really interesting to see the young kids get stuck into vying for a Skateworld voucher and such items. It is an enjoyable fundraiser. I was pleased to donate $250 towards the event, which goes towards the cost of drinks the school can then sell at the event.
In launching the auction, I gave special thanks to Jim Henderson, the auctioneer, who turns up year after year and donates his services. He does a fantastic job. He puts in long hours. It goes from the afternoon into the evening. Jim is a tremendous auctioneer and his services are a huge help and donation to the school.
The auction would not happen at all if it was not for the efforts Deana and Barry Brown. Barry Brown is the school chairperson and he has enormous drive and capacity, love and passion for the school. He is very ably assisted by his wife, Deana, when it comes to the auction. Deana starts off in about February of each year asking businesses for donations. It is through the efforts of Deanna that there are about 160 items donated, some $16 000 in value to the school. Hearty congratulations to Barry and Deana Brown on yet another successful auction.
I also want to congratulate the school principal, Ron Abbott, who gives unstinting support to the school and shows enormous leadership and guidance, not just to the teachers and the staff, but also has a wonderful relationship with the students at the school. Ron celebrated his birthday on 10 August, so I was very happy to give him a bottle of red wine in celebration.
I also congratulate Malak Primary School on a fabulous achievement: their outstanding result in the 2005 Wakakirri Story Dance Festival. Over the last six months, 60 students have been preparing for entry in the 2005 Wakakirri Dance Festival, and the entry featured original story, dance, concepts, costumes and music.
The story presented by the students was Luke’s Way of Looking, and it involved following Luke on a journey through a museum and seeing him make lots of life choices. The school was awarded the top three judges awards: Best School in Public; Teamwork Award; and EcoZone Award. The EcoZone Award was for the most environmentally sound creation of sets, props and costumes. The students had competed against several other schools in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I congratulate the students for their Wakakirri success and to Jo Wrench, their teacher for her great dance and drama leadership in the school. My congratulations also go to other teachers, Ms Rigby, Ms McGrath, Mrs Eerden and the many parents and helpers who got stuck in creating costumes and props. A big congratulations to the Wakakirri team and their overall achievement of second place.
At Malak, we are very lucky to have fine and dedicated teachers who have spent many years working at the school. In recognition of their efforts, the school council decided to nominate them in the National Excellence in Teaching Awards. We are nominating three teachers, Trish Espinoza, Jo Wrench and Kathy Whitfield.
Trish Espinoza is an IT teacher. She offers extension classes and organised entries from Malak School in the Northern Territory ITC competition, which received outstanding results for the school.
Jo Wrench is a creative arts teacher. Some of the events she has organised, as you have heard, is the participation in the Wakakirri story dance competition, but also the Eisteddfod, the Arafura Games opening, Darwin Festival and The Beat. She has conducted a program of beautifying the school assembly area with some fantastic murals from the students.
Kathy Whitfield is an experienced classroom teacher. Her students excel in literacy and numeracy, and she also works with boys in special programs as she recognises that boys have particular education needs.
I am very hopeful that our three teachers will do very well in their nomination for excellence and I look forward to seeing them this coming Friday to help present their nomination certificates at the school.
On another matter, in my role as Minister for Sport and Recreation, tonight I make a tribute to a wonderful Territorian who, tragically, was killed over the weekend, Mr Gary Dhurrkay. Gary Dhurrkay was a former Fremantle and Kangaroos forward in the AFL. He played 51 games for Fremantle between 1995 and 1998, before moving to the Kangaroos for 21 games. He retired in June 2000 to return home to the Northern Territory and commit himself to his cultural beliefs and his community.
Mr Dhurrkay was the first of the Yolngu people to play in the AFL. He was an inspiration to his people, particularly the youth. He first played for the Wanderers Football Club in the Northern Territory Football League and was a member of the 1992-93 premiership team. He also played for the East Fremantle Club in the Western Australian Football League, where he was a member of their 1994 and 1998 premiership winning teams.
Since the beginning of this year, Mr Dhurrkay, who actually wanted to be known by his Aboriginal name Daywarru Dhurrkay, worked in the Department of Health and Community Services as an Aboriginal Mental Health Worker in Nhulunbuy. He was well respected and had a very high standing right across the East Arnhem region. It goes without saying he was a great role model, and his role as a cultural consultant in the team was critical to the work of the whole team. He was very generous in sharing his vast cultural knowledge with the other members of the Mental Health Service, and was also very interested in learning about mental health and was doing a Certificate IV in Mental Health at Batchelor college. He will be very sadly missed by all members of the mental health team in East Arnhem. I am told his colleagues are taking his death very hard.
My thoughts go out to the Yolngu community, they have lost a tremendous young leader. He is a Territorian whom many of us will hold in high esteem forever. My thoughts go to his family and friends at this very sad time.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Athletics Carnival was held on Wednesday, 3 August at the Arafura Stadium, Marrara. The Northern Suburbs Cluster is made up of 14 schools and, therefore, it has been necessary to divide the athletics carnival into two groups since the inception of the cluster format. The Group B schools are the Darwin Adventist School, Marrara Christian School, Holy Family Catholic School, Anula Primary, Karama Primary, Malak Primary and Manunda Terrace Primary School. The schools compete for the Delia Lawrie Shield and the Len Kiely Shield. The Delia Lawrie Shield was presented to the Holy Family Catholic Church and this is based on handicap score, and the Len Kiely Shield was presented to Anula Primary School and is based on the aggregate score. Both the member for Karama and I have been great supporters of the Athletics Carnival over the years and the shields are in perpetuity.
I would like to read out the schools and their scores. First was Anula, for the Len Kiely Aggregate Shield - Anula on 779, Holy Family on 738, Manunda Terrace on 690, Karama on 597, Marrara came in with a whopping 526, and Malak on 325.
For the Delia Lawrie Handicap Shield, Holy Family came in first with 633 points, Anula at 626 points, Manunda Terrace with 584 points were third, Karama 480 points, Marrara 441 points, and Malak at 321 points.
In total, 241 students ranging in age from 10 to 13 participated in 80 track and field events. The coordinator for 2005 was Paulina Motlop from Manunda Terrace Primary School, who was ably supported by the Strong Men, also from Manunda Terrace - colleagues from within the Group B Cluster schools and a band of parent helpers, including her own mother and aunt who had the very important job of recording all the results. The Masters of Ceremonies was confidently handled by Ron Abbott, the Principal of Manunda Terrace Primary School and Russell Legg, Principal of Malak Primary School.
This year, the participants will be considered for selection to the Northern Suburbs Cluster Team to compete at the NT trials. The NT trials are to be held in conjunction with the junior athletics championship on 24 September 2005, and will include teams comprising of primary and secondary-aged students from City, Rivers, Palmerston Rural, Arnhem, Desert Storm and Northern Suburbs clusters. A squad to represent the Northern Territory at the Pacific School Games in Melbourne in November will be selected at the conclusion of the NT trials.
The Cluster Athletics Carnival, in conjunction with the school carnival, is a highlight on the school calendar and many students look forward to being able to represent their school and, in the event of a good performance, may be eligible to move to the next level of the competition and represent their cluster or Territory.
Physical education coordinators of individual schools and the cluster coordinators plan and program closely to enable all children the chance to actively participate, learn and develop new and old skills, and enjoy this part of the physical education healthy learning area.
It was great to be there to hand out the two shields to the well-deserved schools, particularly Anula which is the school that my kids go to - one with which I have very close affiliations, both as the local MLA and parent. I would like to thank Maree Garrigan, the principal; Marisa Boscato and Sue Hyde, the assistant principals, for the work they did in getting their students ready. They went to Marrara and held their own school’s twilight sports carnival, which was a great success. Much of the work was done by Matt Bennett, the physical education teacher. He worked really hard with the kids at the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Carnival, and he was happy to report that the day ran smoothly for all students, teachers and parents involved, and they all seemed to enjoy the day.
The Anula team of 40 students did a fantastic job and came home with the Aggregate Trophy. Over a long day, there was a great sense of team spirit and sportsmanship amongst all of the students. It was great to see them all lined up there, the camaraderie between them all, and to see them all walk away happy and that they tried their best. I was there helping measure out the shot put with some of the parents. Some mighty arms are in amongst those. Young Callum Parker was throwing that shot put a great distance.
I look forward to being there next year and presenting the trophy again. This, by the way, was the third time Anula took out the Len Kiely Trophy, so I might have to look at arranging for some sort of significant trophy that they can keep forever, because this trophy is perpetual and will be handed on to the winners next year. Well done, Anula. Well done to Paulina Motlop for the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Athletics Carnival.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
British Consul-General
British Consul-General
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Ms Helen Horne MBE, British Consul-General. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitor.
Members: Hear, hear!
Church Leaders
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Reverend Dr Philip Freier, Anglican Bishop of the Northern Territory; the Reverend Steve Orme, the Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, Northern Synod; and Mr James Cox who is representing the Baptist Church. On behalf of all honourable members, I wish you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Terrorist Attacks – London and Egypt
Terrorist Attacks – London and Egypt
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly –
1) note the terrorist attacks in London on 7 and 21 July, and in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on 23 July,
and records its profound sympathy for the people of Great Britain and Egypt, particularly all those
who lost family members;
3) offers total support for the united efforts of the nations of the world to combat terrorism; and
4) supports and commends the prompt and effective action of both the British and Egyptian police in
apprehending those suspected of complicity in these outrageous acts.
On 7 July this year, bombs exploded in the London underground, and later on a city bus, killing 56 people and injuring another 775. Then on 23 July, a triple bomb attack on the Egyptian holiday resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh claimed the lives of 65 people, wounding 200 others.
The Northern Territory government strongly condemns these malicious acts of terror and offers its condolences to the family and friends of the victims.
The London bombing was the worst attack on the city since World War II and came at a time when the English were still celebrating the news that they had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. The attack took place as thousands of commuters packed underground train stations to make their way to work. The attacks occurred at rush hour and were timed to create maximum havoc and to take the maximum number of lives. At 8.50 am, the bombs were detonated simultaneously at Aldgate, Edgeware Road and Kings Cross Stations, and nearly an hour later on a double decker bus in Bloomsbury. Two of the bombs, at Aldgate and Edgeware Road, were in trains just below the surface so the force of the blast was dissipated into relatively wide tunnels. Seven commuters died instantly in each train. However, the bomb on the Piccadilly Line near Kings Cross went off inside one of the underground’s deepest tubes over 30 m below the surface. Twenty-one died immediately and others later. Nearly an hour later, in nearby Bloomsbury, a bomb was detonated ripping the roof off a city bus. At least 13 passengers died on the spot with others later succumbing to injuries. Dying later of head injuries sustained on the bus was Australian man, Sam Ly, from Melbourne. The entire tube transport service was shut down as a result of the blasts.
Touchingly, a week later, tens of thousands of Londoners and visitors stood silently in Trafalgar Square in memory of the bombing victims. At the commemoration, London Lord Mayor, Ken Livingstone, said emergency services had been magnificent and he praised Londoners’ calm and courage.
Those responsible were young middle class Britains between 19 and 30 years old. They were Muslims from Leeds in England’s north and one from nearby Aylesbury. The bombers were identified after their parents reported they were missing. Their names matched credit cards and driver’s licences found at the scene. Two of them had visited Pakistan and Afghanistan for military training. Their bombs were made of accessible materials popular with al-Qaeda trained operators. A group calling itself the Secret Organisation of al-Qaeda in Europe claimed responsibility for the attack but that has not been verified. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said the London bombers were driven by an evil ideology.
On 21 July, a second bomb attack attempting to reproduce the carnage of 7 July was staged in the London underground. Fortunately, the bomb detonators failed, and three of the bombers were arrested in the United Kingdom, with a fourth arrested in Italy; Britain is seeking his extradition.
One of the unfortunate consequences of the action of terrorism is a loss of trust in those around us, a heightening of paranoia. In a tragic incident, a Brazilian electrician was killed by police. It was later found that Jean Charles de Menezes was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and his shooting was a very terrible mistake. Our thoughts go out to his family and his friends.
Police are trying to uncover the larger network that may have supported the bombers and those who struck exactly two weeks earlier. No solid connections have yet been made between the two incidents.
Meanwhile, another terrorist bombing took place in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. Seventeen foreigners were among the 64 killed when three suicide bombers drove vehicles into the resort area on the night of 23 July. Two massive car bombs went off simultaneously at 1.15 am, two miles apart.
The first bomb exploded in an area frequented mainly by Egyptians working in the town’s resorts. A second bomb, placed by a man at a minibus park, also killed mostly Egyptians. A third attack was from another suicide bomber who drove into the reception area of the Ghazala Garden Hotel. The dead, very sadly, at the hotel included Britain’s Kerry Davies and Christina Miller, who were planning to relocate to Darwin to work for a sports betting company, CanBet, a subsidiary of International Allsports.
At least five groups have claimed responsibility for the bombings; none of them have been verified. The previously unknown Holy Warriors of Egypt said its supporters had been responsible and named five people it claimed were the bombers.
These bombings happened on 23 July, which is a very important national day in Egypt: the 53rd anniversary of the 1952 revolution which overthrew the monarchy and brought in the army officers’ regime, which was then led to Gamal Abdel-Nasser.
Sharm el-Sheikh is the winter home of the Egyptian President, Hosny Mubarak. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spent the New Year’s holiday in a private villa at Sharm el-Sheikh with his family. There were 9000 British tourists there at the time of the bombing.
The strike at the heart of the city, which is much better guarded than most Egyptian cities, was seen as a significant victory for the terrorists who planned this bombing. The night after the bombing, about 7000 candles were lit by Egyptian and foreign tourists in front of Sharm el-Sheikh’s Hard Rock Caf to mourn the victims of the blasts. A young man who distributed the candles to tourists said:
We will never fear the terrorists. We held the candle party here in order to show our confidence in peace and our
goodwill for the killed and the injured.
The London Guardian newspaper commented:
- This coordinated triple bombing is another appalling example of the calculated barbarity which we are, sadly,
becoming accustomed to.
I extend our government’s sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the Sharm el-Sheikh and London terrorist bombings.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this motion for obvious reasons.
When I was considering what words I would use to express my thoughts, I became somewhat frustrated that I was unable to express myself in a way that reflected my feelings about these bombings that have, again, ripped apart so many innocent families in the name of a cause.
For inspiration, I turned to the writings of others, and I would like to acknowledge as the source of my inspiration the comments of Mona Eltahawy of the Arabic newspaperAsharq al-Awsat:
- One cannot help but notice that when a bomb goes off in London today or in Egypt or in New York or in Beirut for that
matter that casualties are black and white, Muslim, Jew or Christian, men and women, boys and girls, the rich and
the poor.
We also tend to always remember where we were when the bombs went off. I remember where I was, Madam Speaker, when the London bombings occurred. I was with you and some other women members of this parliament in your office. Indeed, it occurred during the last parliamentary sittings. Women from both sides of this Chamber were enjoying a night of conversation and each other’s company. I received a phone call, you will remember. We turned on your television set and we were all glued to the television. We were shocked and, for a while, we sat in silence. It is fair to say that it affected us all very deeply.
Having said that, we shared a special moment; one that all of us will remember forever. All of us are touched by this. All of us are affected in a number of ways. I am certain that none of us in this Chamber have ever heard of a woman, however, called Marie Fatayi-Williams. There is no reason why any of us should ever have heard of her; she is simply a mother who took a flight to London after the 7 July bombings. Marie was a Catholic and she married a Muslim. Together they developed a love that blinded them to the supposed conflict of their faiths and, in a celebration of that love, married and became parents. It is for us as a people a fundamental story, one of love, often arising as a result of differences and one that presses on regardless of the differences perceived by others.
Through their love they had a son, Anthony, and I would like to talk about Anthony. He was a young man, 26 years of age, who was well loved by his parents and he was a normal type of bloke. He liked rap music and said that he wanted to launch his own record label. New York is the place he would have done that had he had the choice. He also told a cousin of his that he wanted to become a politician in Nigeria to try to fix some of that country’s problems. In short, Anthony was a young man whom we all know: starry eyed, idealistic, imbued with the passion of youth, not tainted with the inevitable cynicism that later life seems to bring to so many of us. How many Anthonys do we know, Madam Speaker?
The second thing we should know about this Anthony is that, on 7 July 2005, he did not want to be late for work. This is an important thing to know because, if he had been tardy or less conscientious, he would have taken the London underground, which was his habit. However, on that day there were delays in the underground network so Anthony caught a bus. He caught the No 30 bus that took him through Tavistock Square. As random as a raffle ticket draw, Anthony made a decision that would end his life. The semtex or C-4 or whatever it was that blew the bus apart in Tavistock Square, did not discriminate. It would have just as easily exploded in a mine, or at some roadworks, or wherever it was at the time it was detonated. We cannot expect an explosive to discriminate.
Frankly, the person who set the bomb was just as indiscriminate. He could not have known Anthony, or about his rap music, or about his political ambitions in Nigeria. The image is a stark one: Marie Fatayi-Williams clutching a photograph of her dead son asking a question that has been asked and, sadly, will be asked again and again into the future: ‘How many mothers’ hearts shall be maimed?’ My heart goes out to those mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, lovers, husbands, wives, partners - all those people I cannot know, and could not hope to know, but I wish them peace.
What I would rather wish, however, Madam Speaker, is joy. The joy of a family gathering, the laughter of a Passover or a Christmas, or the spiritual intensity of a Hajj, with those around you who love you and who you love, the joy of looking about you and seeing everyone there who you care about. Instead, the best I can offer is a wish for peace when, at that next family gathering, there is going to be an empty space where Anthony used to sit. A wish of peace from me rings hollow in these circumstances but, sadly, it is all I can offer.
Madam Speaker, I say this: there is little I can do, little we can do, but we can stand and be counted in our resolve to end this cowardice. Shoulder to shoulder, we can all call upon those who would do these despicable acts that someone like Anthony would have liked to have stopped. Theirs is a view of the world that is a reckless one. It is the very serious equivalent of picking up the ball and going home and saying no one else can play.
The point is we are not playing and this is serious, and people like Anthony die and their mothers are stricken with grief. This is to say to the terrorists: when one of your bombs goes off, you kill families and you kill the ability for families to live and love. In Bali, when the Sari Club was destroyed, you brought poverty to the very people you claimed to defend. When children went hungry in Bali after those bombings, they went hungry because their parents could not work in an industry that was damaged by your vengeful and stupid spite. Sadly, we do not see the photographs of their parents who have lost their jobs trying to explain to their babies why they cannot eat when the evening meal does not happen.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, the parliament and, I am sure, of all Territorians, I pray for peace for those families. I pray for their mothers and I pray for peace.
Madam SPEAKER: I now call on members to observe one minute silence as a mark of respect.
Members rose and observed one minute’s silence.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Chief Minister’s Visit to Indonesia
Chief Minister’s Visit to Indonesia
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Assembly on my visit to Indonesia last week. I was honoured to attend the official ceremony for the 60th anniversary of Indonesian independence as a guest of the President, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and to meet separately with him to cement a close working relationship with Indonesia that will benefit the business, cultural and sporting interests of all Territorians.
I have been advised that I am the first of any Australian state or federal minister to attend a flag raising ceremony at the Merdeka Palace, and to be present at the 60th anniversary ceremony was a real privilege. I was honoured to be seated next to the Foreign Minister from the Netherlands at the official ceremony, and to be announced by the President at the reception dinner that evening. The Territory was placed in a position of great honour and respect, and I have thanked the President for his kindness. It is very pleasing that I was able to accept the invitation to attend the celebrations; even though it meant I was not able to attend the sittings last week. There is no better way of strengthening government-to-government relations than accepting such an invitation from the Indonesian President. The invitation to attend this important celebration reflects the strength of our relationship. Our closest neighbour is Indonesia, a long-standing friend of the Territory.
The uniqueness of our relationship is reflected in the historic memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Northern Territory and Indonesian governments in 1992. It is the only known formal agreement between the government of the Republic of Indonesia and a state, territory or provincial government of another country. Strengthening the relationship between the Territory and Indonesia was the focus of my meeting with President Yudhoyono. We acknowledged the importance of the MOU as a vehicle for further cooperation between our two countries and discussed potential opportunities in the areas of trade, education and health, as well as the Territory’s contribution to the tsunami relief effort.
I also took the opportunity to acknowledge the recent inclusion of the Territory as a development partner in the Brunei Indonesia Malaysia and Philippines East Asian Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA); and certainly paid tribute to the work of the previous minister for what he did there.
I was particularly pleased to be able to present the President with a special gift from the people of the Territory to mark the 60th anniversary of independence. Our gift of funding to establish a vocational development program for 20 Indonesian nurses to be provided through the Charles Darwin University was welcomed by the President. The program will provide the necessary training to upgrade the qualifications of nurses to that of Registered Nurse in the Territory; a standard that is recognised internationally. The Territory will work with Indonesia to implement the program which, I am sure, will prove to be as successful as the Territory’s 50th anniversary gift, which were two malaria research fellowships through the Menzies School of Health Research.
During my visit to Jakarta, I also met with Indonesia Foreign Minister, Dr Hassan Wirayuda, who was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss mechanisms for strengthening the value of the MOU between our two countries, including reinvigorating the joint policy committee which is the mechanism for managing the MOU relationship. I expect that our governments will work collaboratively to ensure the JPC continues to be a useful means of coordinating and fostering economic development cooperation between Indonesia and the Territory.
My meeting with the State Minister for Culture and Tourism, Jero Watjik, focused on tourism development opportunities especially relating to inbound and outbound air links, hospitality management training, and cruise ship and sailing-based tourism. We expressed significant interest in taking an integrated regional approach to exploring these opportunities, and will certainly be doing so in the future. Opportunities to increase trade between Indonesia and the Territory and capitalising on the potential of the AustralAsia trade route was the key subject of my discussions with officials from the Ministry of Trade. We also talked about live cattle exports, mining opportunities, air links, Customs and quarantine services.
On that note, Northern Territory government officials and representatives of some regional shipping lines are currently in Indonesia progressing commercial negotiations on the possibility of a new shipping service between Surabaya and Darwin. In September, the Northern Territory government and FreightLink will deliver a joint presentation to the ASEAN Ports and Shipping conference in Surabaya.
Whilst in Indonesia I received a special briefing from Australian officials administering grants and loans under the $1bn Australian/Indonesian partnership for reconstruction and development established following the devastation of the tragic tsunami of late last year. The package applies not only to developments in Aceh but also other parts of Indonesia and represents significant opportunity for Territory firms. The Territory’s proposed reconstruction support will, at the suggestion of President Yudhoyono, focus on the eastern Indonesian provinces which were severely affected by earthquakes not long before the tsunami tragedy. We are working with the Indonesian government and AusAID to scope our support to this very important project.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes this report. It indicates a strengthening of policy in regard to developing stronger relationships leading to trade with our nearest neighbour, Indonesia. Chief Minister, I would say, however, from opposition that we sincerely missed you from the Chamber last week and it really was not the same without you.
It is important to acknowledge that Indonesia has made significant gains in recent years. Often, the magnificent gains of Indonesia’s strengthening democracy are unrecognised and their 60th anniversary celebrations are also of particular significance. I trust that this renewed focus on Indonesia would lead to the development of a stand-alone Asian Relations and Trade unit, that we would have a greater focus on the capacity delivered to us through the AusAID budget to allow programs to be acquitted here in the Northern Territory, capitalising on our strategic advantage of being close to the region, and also having prior education and cultural links with the region, and a greater portion of the AusAID budget could be acquitted through the Northern Territory.
I also hope that the policy shift will lead to an increase in language acquisition within our primary and secondary schools. There was a time when that was quite strong and it has weakened in recent years. That needs to be revamped. Also, sporting competitions and exchanges are the very substance that relations are built upon which lead to trade. On that note, the Palmerston-Kupang sister city model is a very effective community organisation that is leading to effective relationships within the region leading to sport which will lead to trade.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is heartening to hear bipartisan support for my trip last week. I thought that I heard the Opposition Leader bag it, and to say that the Chief Minister was arrogant in accepting an invitation from the President of Indonesia to attend such a significant anniversary.
I was disappointed because, as I said quite a number of times in the media, when I received the invitation I initially said no because I thought: ‘We are sitting and it is important to be here’. Then I thought: ‘How many times would you get an invitation like this to represent the Territory at such a significant anniversary?’. So I did weigh it up, and it was disappointing to hear the Opposition Leader to say that first she bagged the fact that I was going and thought it was a sign of arrogance that I would actually accept the invitation.
I was proud to accept it, and we were very welcome and we were certainly recognised in being there. It will only strengthen what is a very important relationship for the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Indigenous Education Achievements at
Gillen Primary School
Gillen Primary School
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to report on the significant educational outcomes being achieved in indigenous education and boys’ education at Gillen Primary School in Alice Springs. Since 1999, students have seen this school change from a large, predominantly non-indigenous enrolment to a smaller, predominantly indigenous student population. Currently, total student enrolment at Gillen is 243, with 162 - that is 67% - being indigenous and, of these, 104 are males and 58 are female. Thus, 43% of the total enrolment consists of male indigenous students. Principal John Morgan and the staff of Gillen have instituted a multi-layered approach to working with this particular student cohort, an approach which has had beneficial outcomes for all students.
The first layer involves whole-school indigenous programs whereby indigenous staff members, comprising an Aboriginal and Islander education worker and an Aboriginal resource officer, and three teachers provide important role models for students. An indigenous bridging unit currently caters for 17 at-risk and disengaged students who come from remote communities and town camps. This unit has seen 15 students make the successful transition to mainstream classes since its establishment in 2003.
Further to this, a community outreach program, the Larapinta Valley Learning Centre, has been set up in collaboration with Tangentyere Council. This features a primary school program provided by Gillen, adult art and craft programs delivered by Batchelor Institute, a community maintenance course for at-risk youth, and a nutrition program.
The second layer is based on the accelerated literacy program. Gillen piloted this program in 2001. Following significant literacy gains with the pilot, accelerated literacy has been implemented across the school. By focusing on learning achievements, accelerated literacy simultaneously addresses both learning and behavioural issues.
Layer three involves two programs, Rock and Water, and Boys’ Business. Rock and Water was developed to help boys respond to the changing roles of boys in a modern society. It comprises lessons on physical strength, relationships, body language, and mental strength. All boys in Years 5 and 6 take part, and a modified program is taught separately to girls. Boys’ Business is a specific program developed by music educator Bob Smith where senior boys participate in a one week session once a term.
The programs at Gillen Primary have brought about significant social and academic gains for all students. These gains are evident across four areas:
the school’s reputation as a school that looks after both indigenous and non-indigenous
students;
primary schools in the region, close to the Northern Territory average of 83.1%. Attendance
of indigenous students at Gillen is 74.4%;
11 suspensions in the last nine years;
show that out of 26 boys in Years 5 and 6, only four are not reading at year level.
Gillen Primary School’s success has been recognised nationally. These include a state achievement award for literacy in 2003, being named a Quality School in the National Quality Schools Awards for Literacy 2003 and, more recently, a NAIDOC Week Central Australian Indigenous School of the Year Award.
Gillen Primary School is a credit to the work and dedication of John Morgan and his staff at the school. As more indigenous people move to Alice Springs from outlying communities, schools will need to change to meet the needs of a different cohort of students. Excellent, innovative programs like those in place at Gillen are paving the way in modern primary school education and providing examples for other schools in the Alice Springs region. I commend Mr Morgan, his staff and indeed everyone at Gillen Primary School for this outstanding result.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is a welcome report. I have visited this facility and members on this side of the Chamber are familiar with the work at the annexe at Gillen Primary. It does provide a very important element, and that is a successful model that is working in one place, that could be source for hope for the sorts of models that can be run in other places such as in Katherine.
The fine work of certain teachers should be acknowledged, as you did, minister. They really do make the difference. We can have money and programs, but without that extra bit of magic that comes from hardworking and dedicated teachers, it is just programs and money that does not lead to results. It is the human contribution by significant dedicated people that has made this difference.
To add to this very important model - which has shown some success and will lead to hope - we should strengthen it by revisiting the notion of school attendance and welfare payments so that there is a relationship between the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children attend the programs that are started to strengthen education outcomes, support families and create hope for the future, which should be related to the attendance at school, which goes back to the benefits that are received through welfare.
I believe, as members opposite do - and I know members also on the other side of the Chamber believe - it is time we stand up to explore ways where we can work in cooperation with communities to develop that strong link between school attendance and the recognition that the benefit that comes by welfare should also be related to the parents’ responsibility to send their children to the school.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will not comment. However, I thought there might have been another speaker.
I thank the member opposite for very supportive comments. I believe that is right: you can have innovative and creative programs and you can throw lots of money at a school or a situation. Unless you have dedicated and creative people in themselves prepared to go at least halfway in meeting the very different needs of the special cohort of kids, it is not going to work. I accept that, and the member is quite right. Quite clearly, here we have a wonderful, rich mix of talented, creative and committed staff and, of course, the right programs in place.
In relation to tying a family’s social benefits payments to attendance, this is an example of a school working beautifully, with a high attendance rate from indigenous kids, without any of those punitive measures around it. It is something that is tossed up from time to time. We have not actually sat down and considered and analysed it. Often these are the poorest people in the community, we would be further penalising …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: I believe that has to be taken into account.
Alice Springs – Sport and Recreation
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, today I report on my recent visit to Alice Springs and the activities that are happening there in the world of sport and recreation.
We went to the last election with a fantastic package of commitments to build better sporting facilities in the Red Centre, and we are delivering on those commitments. We are building better facilities at Traeger Park with a $3.05m contract awarded while I was there to Probuild (NT) Pty Ltd for the construction of a new grandstand at Traeger Park. The bulldozers have moved in. The facility will include change rooms, an umpires room, spectator seating and, most importantly, given my two portfolio responsibilities, a lift and a ramp connecting the new building to the existing Mona’s Lounge, providing access to those sport-loving Territorians who have a mobility impairment.
I was also pleased to meet with the CEO of the Central Australian Football League, Mr Gary Learmonth, who is delighted that the contract for the last stage of the Traeger Park development has been let.
Following our $130 000 commitment to the Alice Springs Golf Club, I met with Mr Colin Penley and several of his committee members at that spectacular desert golf club, one of the top 10 desert golf clubs in its rankings. I am very much looking forward to working with the Alice Springs Golf Club and, indeed, with golf clubs and fans more broadly to ensure that this sport has a secure future in the Territory.
I also took the time to have a look at other sporting facilities in Alice Springs. I met with NT Netball representative, Leanne Southam, at the Pat Gallagher Netball Centre, and saw some of the Territory’s best up and coming netballers in action during their Saturday morning games. There was a very large crowd of parents there supporting the juniors.
With just a few steps next door, I was able then to view the future of Territory football and meet with Mr Neil Smark at Ross Park to discuss our government’s $500 000 commitment for a new home ground for junior football. I look forward to working with the NT Football Federation as we deliver on this commitment.
My trip could not have come at a better time. Mr John van Groningen, from Athletes as Role Models was visiting Alice Springs at the time and I was able to obtain a comprehensive update on the schedule of visits to remote communities from elite athletes throughout Australia in the coming six months.
I was pleased to learn that initial evaluations of this program suggest that it is having a direct impact on school attendance. I also know that the program now includes ongoing e-mail contact between these elite athlete role models and the students at remote schools. I look forward to encouraging this program during my ministry.
I was also fortunate to meet some of the key organisers of our Masters Games. I am in absolute awe of the work they do to ensure that the games are a great experience for everyone who participates. I have promised to participate. Of course, there is the $8.1m for a fantastic new aquatic centre.
The hallmark of this government has been our ability to balance attracting big sporting events with a need to support grassroots initiatives, and this continues. As I outlined in this House last week, in February next year, we will see first-class Rugby League action at Anzac Oval when the Penrith Panthers take on the Newcastle Knights. This is a just reward to the people of Alice Springs for their dedication to their sports, and it builds on our previous achievement of bringing preseason AFL to Traeger Park.
I am, indeed, privileged to hold the portfolio of Sport and Recreation and to follow on the good work of the previous minister, Mr Ah Kit. I have had a fantastic few weeks meeting many of the hardworking volunteers, players and officials who run and participate in our sports throughout the Territory. I look forward to meeting with many more of our dedicated and hardworking Territory volunteers, players and officials as I visit other areas of the Territory in the coming weeks. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is good news for Alice Springs. However, it is the duty of the opposition to analyse, very carefully, the expectation that has been delivered to certain communities to ensure that they are actually delivered in the detail in which they were articulated during the election campaign. Yes, granted, that there is some welcome news for Traeger Park. However, it appears to be the same story that is replicated either north or south; that when it comes to grandstands, we do get the facility but not quite to the expectation of the community concerned. I would like to know whether that grandstand at Traeger Park is actually going to be built as the community was led to believe it was going to be built after the election.
Similarly, with the Palmerston Magpies at this end of town. It appears that the commitment has been delivered - not quite, because it is a grandstand missing some seats.
I go back to Alice Springs, and talk about the salt intrusion at the Alice Springs Golf Course - a very important part of our tourism infrastructure. There was nice talk, good visit, and some money given. However, there was a commitment - and I hope that we hear this has been delivered - of $150 000 to research the specific issue of salt intrusion on that course; not just to identify that there is a problem but to go to the next stage – a solution. There are solutions that have been talked about in Alice Springs of how the salt intrusion can be reduced by a cocktail of water that is flowing right by the shore. That was raised by Mr Penley.
Coming back to the Top End, a lot of money is being spent on certain places that appear to suit certain cohorts. It strikes me, driving past Leanyer with the great facility there, that there are many young people in Palmerston who have also noticed the great improvements at Leanyer. There is a skate park in Palmerston that has no shade structure whatsoever, and they are noticing it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for those comments. I just want to point out the skate park at Palmerston was built by Palmerston City Council. And you are quite right - they should be putting shade in that skate park. I have said that for years. In this day and age, you should not be building a skate park without putting shade over it. I urge you to talk to the Mayor of Palmerston, Annette Burke, about that because kids are out there getting sunburnt and it is the responsibility of the council to build a facility with all the shade associated with it. The Northern Territory government, as part of its funding of skate parks, put shade over skate parks, which is a really important thing to do.
In relation to your concerns about Alice Springs and whether we are going to deliver on the detail as articulated – yes. When I was there I showed them the designs, the plans; it is as we articulated. The people are very enthusiastic about the type of facility they have. Picking up on some newspaper concern about whether it will be finished in time for the AFL match down there - yes, indeed. I have said some of the Crownies may not quite be cold enough, but there will certainly be a fantastic grandstand and facility there for people to enjoy, which will help everyone …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Darwin City Waterfront Development – Financial Close
Darwin City Waterfront Development – Financial Close
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make this important statement to the Assembly today about the government reaching financial close with the Darwin Cove Consortium on the Darwin City Waterfront Convention Centre Development.
Financial close for the project occurred on 9 May 2005 this year. The $1.1bn project will add an exciting new dimension to the city of Darwin, a new dimension for locals, a new dimension for jobs, and new dimension for our tourism industry.
The government has had a strong vision for the waterfront development from the outset. It will be a precinct for people with foreshore access around the entire 2 km promenade, and extensive public open space that will include significant parklands providing deep shade throughout the development area. The precinct will balance residential privacy with public accessibility, providing a vibrant space for up to 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It will have, as one of its central attractions, a convention centre that will boost significantly new business tourism to the Top End with leisure and recreational opportunities like year-round swimming, and great restaurants and cafs providing a future attraction for tourists to visit Darwin.
Darwin will have a prestigious convention space, superbly located to take full advantage of water views that will attract major events. The convention centre will be built under the government’s public/private partnership policy with the Build, Own, Operate and Transfer arrangement over a 25-year period, allowing the government to pay for the centre over time, and gain full ownership at the end of the period. The other two key components of the project are a $160m investment in community facilities that the government will fund in Stage 1 and the private sector will pay for in Stage 2; and a property development that will be built progressively over a 15-year period by the consortium from which the government will reap an appreciating return as capital values climb over the development period.
I would like to emphasise that this is not a project that will swamp the Darwin residential market. It will be built progressively in line with market forces, with the consortium having up to 15 years to complete the work. It is a significant vote of confidence by the national and global markets in the future of our great capital city. This will be a project for all Territorians to seek rewards from, to take pride in, and to receive enjoyment from - rewards because a minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry. In Stage 1 alone, between 2005 and 2009, about $300m in construction expenditure will occur within the local economy. In the consortium itself there is considerable local industry representation including Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture; Macmahon NT, formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell; Connell Mott MacDonald; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt; and Knight Frank. Around 1000 direct jobs will be created during the construction phase with 200 direct jobs being created during operation. $190m in today’s prices will be generated in additional tourism expenditure over a 20-year period.
There will be reward from the economic stimulation the project will contribute to the central business district drawing residents and visitors alike back to Darwin’s heart through a significant enhancement of the peninsula’s built form and landscaping. We will take pride in the development because the waterfront will be transformed from an industrial wasteland in the main to an environmental and civic show piece. It will turn the city towards our magnificent harbour in a way never before envisaged, offering a fine reception for Territorians to enjoy, and visiting passengers and crew to be impressed by. We will have a convention centre that is authentically iconic.
Enjoyment will come from Territorians being able to swim year round by the sea. Families and friends will be able to picnic in the parks, walk the promenades around the 2 km of foreshore, and enjoy the markets. People will be able to enjoy coffee or a meal and walk through the heritage trails. We will be able to enjoy the public art. The precinct will be a place for special celebrations, be they indoors in the people’s convention centre or outdoors celebrating such events as Self-Government Day or New Year’s Day.
Our challenge is not to develop a ‘formulaic’ waterfront, a style that is already prevalent around Australia, but rather to stamp this project with the quality that will serve to distinguish Darwin in a global context, to set it apart, exhibiting the unique characteristics of our city, by drawing on our rich cultural past, our dynamic present, and our promising future.
Just as the Army Presence in the North project contributed significantly to the Top End construction sector for a decade in the 1990s, so will the waterfront project provide at least a decade of construction activity to underpin the local economy with a stable and substantial base. This activity comes at a time when other major projects are under way, such as the Alcan expansion on the Gove Peninsula, the Business Park, the Darwin international fuel terminal at East Arm, and the Wickham Point gas plant.
The process of putting this project in place commenced in early 2003 when government undertook an assessment of the need for a convention centre and, if this was found to be case, where it should be located. By mid-2003, it became clear that a convention centre was needed, with government intervention in the marketplace necessary to make it happen. The assessment showed that, while a convention centre would generate considerable economic benefits for the Top End economy, many of those benefits would not be able to be captured by a purely private sector investment. The benefits accrued are dispersed widely to hotel and transport operators as well as tour companies, retailers and restaurant owners, hence the government’s involvement to allow these benefits to be enjoyed broadly throughout the economy.
In May of that year, a team of government representatives sought to market test the project, putting forward to around eight major private sector groups in one-on-one sessions the vision of a waterfront development with the convention centre as its centre piece. The key messages from this exercise were that the concept was bold and highly attractive in principle from a market perspective and that the government should take the project to the marketplace in an efficient manner and simply not mess around. Make decisions in good time and in an orderly manner so that all parties know where they stand was the message.
The government made its decision, subsequently, to proceed to the marketplace to seek a partnership arrangement and, in September 2003, called for expressions of interest, putting $100m on the table as the government’s offer being primarily for the convention centre. With a strong response from the market, 11 expressions of interest in total, the government proceeded in January 2004 to appoint three highly capable and competitive consortia to undertake detailed bids. By September of that year, the Darwin Cove Consortium was selected as the preferred proponent, and by May of this year, financial close was achieved and that consortium became the successful consortium.
Among many remarkable things about the government’s approach to this project, there is one in particular, in relation to timing, that I wish to acknowledge before the Assembly today. From commencement in September 2003 when the government sought expressions of interest from the marketplace to participate in the project, the government proceeded efficiently to financial close within 20 months, exactly as major companies had requested when we market tested the project in May 2003. For a $1.1bn project requiring international finance, this compares very well with equivalent projects elsewhere in Australia in terms of project negotiations of such complexity.
The consortium for the project is led by the international banking group ABN AMRO. The bank is prominent in major construction projects in Australia, with sound credentials in public/private partnerships, including, among numerous major projects, the $1.1bn Lane Cove tunnel in Sydney and the $425m Spencer Street Station redevelopment in Melbourne.
It is important to note that despite speculation in recent days surrounding the decision of some of the ABN AMRO management team to join Babcock and Brown, ABN AMRO remains committed to the project. The bank is ranked 11th in Europe and 20th in the world, and has the resources worldwide to fill the gaps left by the outgoing management team. Importantly, all contracts are in place. This means that despite any changes to its management team, the bank is contractually bound to fulfil its obligations – and why wouldn’t they want to? I can report that, even as we speak, it is in the process of initiating transitional arrangements to be put in place while longer term arrangements are finalised. Let me assure Territorians that these management changes have not and will not cause delays to the project.
Another principal member is the Toga Group of companies who will construct the residential, hospitality and Stage 2 community infrastructure. Established in 1963, Toga is one of Australia’s largest privately-owned groups with national and international interests in property development, construction, hospitality and aquaculture. The group is the parent company for the Medina Apartment Group, Vibe Hotels Australia and Travelodge, with Medina to manage the apartment hotel within the Darwin City Waterfront.
Other important participants of major contractors include Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture with a key interest in the construction of the Convention Centre; Macmahon Holdings, which now incorporates the NT part of Henry Walker Eltin, with principal responsibilities for the civil works, including the sea wall that will form a body of permanent water within Kitchener Bay; Ogden IFC, operators of the Convention Centre, with good experience nationally and internationally for convention centre operations; and Honeywell, asset managers for the convention centre and a well-known international group.
Advisors and consultants to the consortium include: Hassell, project planners and architects, with a globally established practice from this well-known firm; Connell Matt MacDonald, project engineers; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt, quantity surveyors; and Knight Frank, property sales and marketing.
This will be a public/private partnership. From the government’s contribution towards the convention centre and Stage 1 of community infrastructure, we will leverage a $1.1bn investment in the Northern Territory. The project will be a mixed public infrastructure/convention centre/residential/commercial development. It will consist of: the Darwin convention and exhibition centre; community infrastructure throughout; a hospitality precinct; residential development; cruise ship terminal facility; retail/commercial space; and full public access to all foreshore areas. The public components will include the convention centre, Stage 1 of the community infrastructure, and financial returns to government from residential sales.
The convention centre will consist of 1500-seat plenary space, divisible into two separate sections; 4000 m2 of exhibition space, divisible into three separate spaces; and approximately 1000 m2 of function room space. There is a March 2008 completion date, although an earlier completion is being targeted. The Build, Own, Operate and Transfer – BOOT - arrangement with the consortium includes design and construction by the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture, with the private sector providing finance, design and construct, maintenance and operational services. In operations over a 25 year concession period, Ogden IFC will be the operator. The owners and operators during this period will be provided with incentives to attract national and international delegates. For maintenance, Honeywell will be the asset manager. Government payments may be abated or suspended if the convention centre is not maintained to an appropriate standard.
The government has approved and entered into financing arrangements for the design, construction, finance, maintenance and operation of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre as follows:
the consortium’s construction costs for the convention centre is $102.85m;
opening and Territory-owned construction;
the Territory availability payment will be around $12m annually for the first full year in
the 2008-09 year, paid on a quarterly basis over 25 years that includes capital, financing
costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based components;
at the end of the concession period of 25 years, the convention centre will revert to
Territory ownership;
for comparative purposes, it is necessary to express all costs in today’s dollars. In the
case of the convention centre, this cost is $115m, a 10.3% discount rate as of 1 July 2005,
which includes overall financing costs at around $3m per annum for operational support; and
security will be assured as no payments are made until the convention centre work is completed and ready for use.
For community infrastructure Stage 1, the government has approved and entered into financing arrangements for the design, construction and finance of the Stage 1 community infrastructure, with a maximum price of $94.6m. This work will include:
marine works at $41.8m. These works include creation of a retention pond at East Arm Port,
dredging of the convention centre pad and lagoons, and construction of the sea wall for the
convention centre and the lagoon breakwater;
services and infrastructure at $7.7m, which includes all site power, sewer, communications
and water infrastructure required for the various facilities;
roads and car parking at $3.7m. All internal roads to service the development and all on-street
car parking and traffic management devices;
bridge link, stairs and lifts at $3.8m: pedestrian access stairs down the escarpment from
Smith Street and a covered bridge link into the site including viewing platform and glass lifts
to ground level;
water recreation of $11.1m with the inclusion of a wave pool, children’s water play facilities and
shade and rest areas integrated with the public domain landscape;
public domain at $11.4m, which includes landscaped public open space adjacent to the water
recreation facilities, covered walkways linking the various elements around the promenade,
water features and other facilities such as barbecue areas;
structured car park, $9.1m. A multi-level car park adjacent to the hospitality precinct;
a new cruise ship terminal at $4.5m will provide facilities for visiting cruise ships; and, importantly,
the Avenue of Honour, $1.5m, which is the important connection between the end of the mall and the
Smith Street bridge link celebrating Darwin’s cultural and heritage history.
The community infrastructure Stage 1 is due for completion by December 2006. The consortium will design and construct the community infrastructure. The Territory’s payments will be staged in line with the planning and construction timetable. Ownership of the community infrastructure will transfer to the Territory on completion. The Territory will establish a statutory authority to manage the public domain aspects of the site. The cost of community infrastructure Stage 1 in real prices is $91m, an 8% discount rate as of 1 July 2005. A letter of credit with a face value of $97.1m is being held as security until the work is competed. This provides excellent security for the Territory.
Stage 2 infrastructure of approximately $63m, including a lock, roads and services, and other public infrastructure such as parks and heritage links, is the responsibility of the Stage 2 developer. The Territory retains ownership of Stage 2 land until individual parcels are sold direct to residential purchasers. This, again, provides excellent security for the Territory.
I should add that, while the government’s budget will go into deficit for a time to assist with the financing of government’s contribution to the project, budget balance will be restored by 2008-09.
An important part of this project is property returns to the government. The Territory will share in the property returns from the development of all stages as they occur. The Territory decided to share in the increasing uplift in the value of its land over time as the property is developed, rather than selling the unimproved land to the consortium. The Australian Valuation Office provided a valuation of the waterfront land to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment at about $26m in today’s dollars, based upon a convention centre and the associated commercial development of 1200 residential units. In comparison, the property returns to government from this arrangement are estimated at $191m nominal prices, or $62m in real prices at 1 July 2005, using a 15% discount rate. Using a 10% discount rate, the return to government is estimated at $88m.
It is notable that the recorded number of sales of residential units and apartments for the 2004-05 financial year has outstripped recorded housing sales for the first time, and that the median unit price for Darwin overall increased by 6.6%. Therefore, it may be anticipated that property returns to government will be higher than those reported here; that is, the returns in nominal values could be well over $200m by the end of the project.
Property returns to the Territory are: in Stage 1, 10% of gross commercial sales to the developer and 12% gross residential sales, with the estimated return to government being $10.4m; in Stage 2, 10% of gross commercial sales to the developer and 18% of gross residential sales, with the estimated return to government being $180.8m. Independent advice is that Stage 1 returns compare favourably with equivalent government arrangements elsewhere in Australia, where returns are generally in the 11% to 15% of gross residential sales. For Stage 2, where the great bulk of sales will occur, the returns compare well, being very comfortably above the national market average. Importantly, the Territory return under both Stages 1 and 2 is not a problematic assessment of profit but, rather, is related to gross sales by way of a fixed percentage of the final sales price including land and buildings, to ensure the Territory shares in the increasing value of the development over the next 15 years. The developer receives the balance of the proceeds of the sale after Territory receipts, subject to an allowance for GST and other tax payable.
Madam Speaker, under the Territory’s policy dealing with public private partnership arrangements, a public sector comparator is required to be developed for assessment against offers from the marketplace. The financial arrangement stands up well against an equivalent project if it were to be undertaken by government. That is, the nett present cost to government for the transaction is estimated at $144m in today’s values made up of $115m for the convention centre and $91m for the community infrastructure Stage 1, less $62m for the property returns at a 15% discount rate, or less $88m at 10% discount rate for the property returns, giving a nett cost of $118m. Adding an allowance for Territory management costs of $6m to the more conservative figure of $144m, to ensure equivalency of cost components with the public sector comparator, brings this amount to $150m. The public sector comparator costed on an equivalent basis, and again in today’s dollars but a lower discount rate, is estimated at $281m.
The analysis shows that a significantly better financial outcome is achieved for the Territory through an arrangement with the private sector. This comparison does not take into account the related economic benefits that the project will deliver through direct investment by the consortium over and above the benefits associated with the Territory’s own financial investment.
___________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, would you mind if we just recognise these young people in the gallery?
Ms MARTIN: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 students from Katherine School of the Air accompanied by Ms Jodi Hart; and Year 4 students from Katherine South Primary School accompanied by Christine Sutherland and Steven Shepherd.
On behalf of all honourable members I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and though you are here for some very technical aspect of what is involved in this waterfront development, I am sure you will share the excitement of what we are going to be doing here in Darwin. From a Katherine point of view, it is not far up the track to go. I hope in a couple of years’ time you will certainly enjoy our wave pool.
Back to the technicalities of the public sector comparator: these benefits not taken account of include, but are not limited to, $7m in public art investment by the consortium and $63m invested by the consortium in community infrastructure in Stage 2. This provides further substantiation for the government’s decision to proceed with the transaction.
Private sector contributions to the project: the private sector development includes hospitality, residential Stage 1 and residential Stage 2 components, and public infrastructure. Hospitality includes a Medina Grand apartment hotel of 141 rooms; a signature restaurant; provision for a possible further accommodation facility; and some associated commercial activities with 1% of construction cost in public art, and project completion in 2008. Residential Stage 1 comprises 138 apartments; 1% of construction cost in public art; a mixed-use commercial and retail component including restaurants, alfresco dining opportunities; and property returns to the Territory upon sale of property based on percentage of gross price. Residential Stage 2, incorporating community infrastructure Stage 2, includes 1302 apartments; 1% of construction cost in public art; a mixed-use commercial and retail component similar to that in Stage 1; and property returns to the Territory upon gross sale price. Community infrastructure Stage 2 of $63m and paid by the developer includes a lock, foreshore promenades, public access in and around the private elements, Goyder’s Park, heritage trails, and Stokes Hill foreshore park.
Importantly, all basic infrastructure such as roads, power, water and sewer are to be provided by, in Stage 2, the private sector. It is expected full site development will occur over 15 years with the final sunset date for completion of the development being 2020.
In the interests of providing as comprehensive a statement as possible it is worth noting other costs considerations that are a normal part of government providing major project incentives for significant projects that will make an important contribution to the Territory’s economy. These may be generally described as the transaction costs associated with the project. There is the statutory corporation and the establishment cost for such a corporation is estimated to be in the order of $1m, including chief executive, financial manager, precinct promotions, office manager, administrative support, consultants, legal advice, and other office costs.
The statutory corporation is intended to break even, in cost revenue terms, over time. The statutory corporation will charge rates in similar fashion to that of Darwin City Council and will carry out local government responsibilities including roads, drainage and public utility services; maintenance of the quality of the water; foreshore maintenance; marine structures, including maintenance of the seawall and water quality within the contained water body; landscaping and maintenance of the public areas; public toilet facilities; and rubbish removal from the public domain. Subject to commercial outcomes, the corporation may also operate the facilities within the water recreation area. The corporation will have the ability to charge a premium on Darwin City Council rates of up to 20% higher to ensure any higher amenity demands are met while balancing its books over time.
Another aspect is decontamination payments. The Territory has accepted responsibility for the management and clean-up as required under the environmental management framework for pre-existing contamination. Decontamination costs are budgeted at $1m in 2005-06. Further costs will be quantified over time, but are anticipated to be in the order of $10m in total. The key point is that the Territory has direct control and management of these costs, and the recent completion of the Remediation Action Plan addressing the requirements of the independent environmental auditor now provides the scope of works required and enables decontamination to proceed in line with the staged development of the site.
Other costs include consultant costs, the costs of undertaking environmental studies, demolition and removal costs, the Territory payment for unsuccessful bidders costs, and the headwork costs, which include roads, power, water and sewerage. I reiterate that these costs are offset by, among other benefits, $7m in public art contributions and $63m in community infrastructure investment by the consortium.
There are a number of other matters on which I would like to briefly touch in relation to the project. First, project documentation and risk allocation: five key project documents were entered into by the Territory with the consortium partners, including the Darwin Convention and Exhibition Centre Concession Deed, a Community Infrastructure Project Delivery Deed, a Hospitality Development Project Delivery Deed, a Residential Development Project Delivery Deed, and the Stage 2 Project Delivery Deed.
Principal risk allocation is as follows:
for the convention centre, the public private partnership principle has been applied such that risks
are allocated to parties best able to manage them;
private sector risks include such matters as construction risk - design, time, cost - and asset
maintenance. Shared risks include delegate numbers. The Territory risks include native title,
decontamination and unexploded ordnance risks.
similar risk allocations apply for the community infrastructure Stage 1. That is, construction risk
rests with the consortium and the native title, decontamination, unexploded ordnance risks rest
with the Territory; and
for the residential and related private developments, the consortium will take construction and
maintenance risks, with shared risks being gross revenue from the property sales. The Territory
will take the risk for native title and unexploded ordnance.
Some other important considerations: the Development Consent Authority will continue to play a significant role in the planning and approval process throughout the development of the project. In recognition of the importance of the role of the Darwin City Council, the government has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the council. The memorandum deals with interface issues between the precinct with Darwin City Council’s municipal boundary, including such important connections as the Avenue of Honour, connecting, as it will, the precinct with the mall.
Environmental provisions have been extensively covered in previous statements to this Assembly.
In terms of our relationship with Defence, I am pleased to report to the Assembly that constructive discussions are ongoing. There has been considerable consultation between the Territory and Defence over a period of some two years, and extensive information has been provided to fully brief Defence on the details of the project. This has involved a number of meetings between officers. In addition to meetings between officers, Defence representatives attended detailed briefings during the public consultation on environmental assessment matters. A special briefing was also arranged on the overall project. In particular, a briefing on Stage 1 was provided by the Executive Director of ABN AMRO representing the Darwin Cove Consortium following their announcement as preferred proponent.
Extensive documentation has been available to Defence directly and through the project web site, including draft environmental impact statement, environmental assessment report and various consultants’ reports. The Northern Territory has forwarded extensive documents to Defence in relation to the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment and the various Development Consent applications. I had constructive discussions with the Prime Minister in April about Defence considerations. I am encouraged by these discussions and subsequent ones between the head of the Department of Defence and the head of my department, and am confident that ongoing matters of concern in relation to the use of the port by Defence can be settled in a manner acceptable to both our governments.
The key advisors to the Northern Territory have endorsed this project as representing value for money for the Territory with the risk to government within acceptable and responsible bounds for a project of this type.
I will now outline the progress since 9 May of this year. The consortium members have been diligently progressing design for both the convention and exhibition centre and the community infrastructure components. The public domain elements are to be delivered under separate development permits for marine and community infrastructure components. In the period since financial close, the community infrastructure developer has been occupied in the preparation of construction and environmental management plans addressing the requirements of the Development Consent Authority which must be met prior to commencement of construction activity.
As a necessary precursor to the commencement of full-scale dredging activities, a pond to contain the dredge sediments has been created by the construction of a bund within the reclamation area at East Arm. Removal of metalliferous objects, including possible war debris identified by magnetometer survey, is expected to commence later this week. When design development of the convention and exhibition centre has been progressed sufficiently, tender packages will be prepared to enable local subcontractors and suppliers to compete for work consistent with the terms of the Local Industry Participation Plan.
I would like now to address the probity issues. In addition to Mallesons Stephen Jaques providing legal advice, that firm also provided advice on probity issues as part of their legal brief. This work included advising the Territory on changes to the composition of the consortium, any issues of concern with the tender process that inevitably arise in projects of this complexity; and other matters dealing with project documentation and treatment of intellectual property on a confidential basis. Mallesons Stephen Jaques concluded that, considering these issues among others, the Northern Territory was entitled to enter into the project documentation and the process of selection was sound.
The government also appointed a probity auditor to act as an independent agent on the process. Any party might seek advice from, or refer matters to, the auditor for inquiry and receive a response from the probity auditor. Once again, this process is standard procedure for projects of this complexity. The probity auditor appointed was the Darwin office of Ernst & Young, with that office subsequently, during the course of the submission and selection process, becoming Merit Partners with the withdrawal of Ernst & Young from the Darwin market. Merit Partners, nevertheless, retains an association with Ernst & Young.
In addition, a further probity auditor, that of Deloitte Touche Tomatsu, was appointed during an interactive bidding process with the three short-listed consortia in June and July of 2004. At a number of points during this time, the probity auditor received confirmation from each of the short-listed bidders that they had no issue in respect to the process. Neither the probity auditor, nor the probity auditors, have raised any issues of concern in relation to the process.
The Northern Territory has received releases from each unsuccessful bidder from entering into any claims against the Northern Territory as part of their bid process, and transferring the intellectual property of their respective bids to the government. This is normal prudent practice by the government. In turn, the government has paid the Territory payment to one losing consortium, and has before it a recommendation to pay the Territory payment to the other party, which I expect to be acted upon.
To conclude, this is a project for all Territorians to celebrate. It will deliver considerable stimulus to the Northern Territory economy. In summary, the nett cost to government from this development, taking into account payments for the convention centre and community infrastructure Stage 1, and allowing for property returns, is estimated at between $118m and $144m in today’s dollars. For this outlay, the Northern Territory will get an iconic convention centre that we can all be proud of; significant community infrastructure valued around $160m, just under 40% of which is privately-funded; a magnificent waterfront precinct which will be accessible to all; and a $1.1bn development project overall, the great bulk of which will be privately funded and will drive a key sector of the Northern Territory economy for a decade or more.
I should add that the Auditor-General has been given a thorough briefing on all matters pertinent to his responsibility in relation to the project. He has made his own report to this Assembly, and it is pleasing to note that his report supports the opinion of the probity advisers and probity auditors, as I have previously noted.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the team who played the principal role in putting the project together, led by Paul Tyrrell, Chief Executive of my department, and including Pat Coleman as the Project Director, Terry O’Neill as Technical Director, Alastair Shields from the Department of Justice, Linda Mackenzie from Treasury, Brendan Lawson from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and Larry Bannister from my department. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, in particular, played an important supporting role to the team, as did advisers including Mallesons Stephen Jaques, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Merit Partners.
I look forward to the time, in about a decade from now, when I can walk the promenade looking back on the precinct with the city centre in the background, knowing we have a world-class convention centre and civic space to be proud of. I foresee a flourishing precinct that is owned by the people of Darwin, and where up to 2500 will live. Some of this will become evident even earlier, in 2008, when Stage 1 is completed as a self-contained and completed stage in itself.
With much pride and many thanks to all those involved, I commend the statement to the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her statement.
Before getting into the body of the statement, the opposition understands that we need to have a briefing, and we will be doing that. We have attempted to get one, but the coordination of public servants as well as the opposition has been difficult, and there were some illnesses along the way. I make that point because I well understand the need for us to receive a briefing on this project; it is completely appropriate that we do so.
I make the point, though, that there is a contribution we can make to this statement based on what we do know so far. The third reason I raise that point is that, throughout my contribution, I would be grateful if members opposite would spare me what is likely to be the inevitable interjection of ‘Get a briefing, get a briefing’. Having said that regarding those matters, I happily embark on my contribution.
It needs to be said that the CLP supports this proposal. I will say again: the CLP opposition supports this project. The opposition realises just how important this project is to the future of both Darwin and the Northern Territory. The CLP understands that our community is built on small business employment, and that this project is crucial to Darwin and the Territory. That is why the CLP proposed this project, and started planning it, some years ago. Therefore, I say again: the CLP is supportive of this project. To argue that the sky is not blue but, in fact, red, is just absurd. Although I understand the political motivation for them doing it, I wish that members of the government would at least be honest with us when we are debating this issue. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Territory families will rely on work from this project and, consequently, that is one of the prime reasons for our support of it.
However, Chief Minister, let me make some things equally clear. The opposition’s support does not extend to blind, unquestioning faith in your government’s ability to manage this project properly. We are well paid for the job we do, and we intend to do it whether you like it or not. We are sorry that we will be asking questions in relation to this project, but we are duty bound to do so.
The Darwin waterfront and convention centre development is a complex beast, and the opposition intends offering as much bipartisan support to the project as we can. Nevertheless, there are issues where the government and, in particular, the Chief Minister, is failing the people of the Territory. The Chief Minister has told Territorians of the huge positive employment effect this project will have and, in that regard, I quote the Chief Minister as follows:
- Territory businesses will reap the major benefits from the project with approximately 1000 jobs created and 85% local
content component guaranteed in the project contents.
The Chief Minister said local content component was 85%. She said it in a media release only a few months ago and also in the speech today. However, we asked the Chief Minister what she says to Territorians about all of the design work for this project being carried out interstate. No doubt, the Chief Minister will say that local firms have the contracts. However, can the Chief Minister tell us whether these local firms are actually doing the work in Darwin? My understanding is that these firms are actually having the work done in their interstate offices. That does not translate to local employment. Can the Chief Minister assure the businesses of the Territory that the joint venturers will ensure that the waterfront work will be carried out in Darwin - and please, do not confuse that with carrying out work in the interstate offices of firms which also happen to have a presence in Darwin? Can the Chief Minister tell us just how many firms contracted to these project are doing all of the work relating to their contracts using Territorians and within the Northern Territory?
However, this is not the end of this particular aspect which was described today, yesterday, and in the last week or so, as this government’s duplicity towards local businesses, their employees and their families. The reasons for this will emerge shortly, but I am sure government is already on to where I am coming from.
The government is actively working to disadvantage firms which have a proud and long history with the Territory. What does the Chief Minister say to those Darwin firms involved in the mechanical - yes, the airconditioning and ventilation aspect - of this project? The government has unashamedly handed out those contracts to interstate firms. I wonder what the Chief Minister would say to those people employed in these local industries. Or is it the case that perhaps government does not care about them in the way that they have indicated?
Of course, Chief Minister, of the firms that government has chosen for this work, some of them do not have a presence in Darwin. Nevertheless, you would be aware of how important subcontractors are to every local economy. ‘Will we see you subject them to the same duplicity?’, it was asked of me from a business person this morning. Will we see you say to them and their families, their wives and their children, that most subcontractual works will go interstate? We ask whether the Chief Minister and the government really understands how important it is to the Territory that the waterfront industry be kept local.
Further to that, I understand that all the design work for the business and innovation building in the Alice Desert Knowledge Project has recently been let to a team in which all of the structural, civil, mechanical and plumbing design will be carried out by firms with no presence in the Northern Territory. Perhaps the Chief Minister could comment on that in her reply.
I would ask that in her reply, the Chief Minister not give us the line that the projects are too big for our local firms. Our excellent local businesses were more than capable of successfully completing all of the work at Robertson Barracks, Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and, indeed, Parliament House and the Supreme Court. In fact, they are up to the job and the prices are competitive.
Most of the purchasing of the gas plant and, certainly the railway, was done directly interstate. The information I am receiving is that your business policy is, however, adversely affecting our local businesses. Chief Minister, will you advise Territorians whether those 1000 jobs that you say will be generated by the waterfront proposal will be on a fly-in/fly-out basis? Surely it is not too hard for your minister to organise the various locally-based subcontractor groups into, perhaps, a joint venture and then encourage the joint venturers to put work their way.
When the member for Wanguri was Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, he had the gall to produce a specific policy entitled Building the Northern Territory Industry Participation. I remind you of the objectives of that fine sounding policy:
- The primary objectives of Building the Northern Territory Industry Participation are to give competitive Territory
businesses the opportunity to participate in the future growth of the Territory; and enhance Territory businesses
and industry capability.’
The member for Wanguri - that is the one who has designs on your job, Chief Minister - specifically says in that policy of his that he will promote the use of local services and supplies. Chief Minister, you announced in that media release that the Territory government is going to provide financial support to the tune of $102.85m for the design and construction of the waterfront project. It is time, we say, and indeed others say, that you made sure that as much of that money as possible stays within the Territory for Territory families.
__________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, would you mind if we just paused a moment to recognise these young people?
Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 8 students from St John’s College accompanied by Ms Kerrie O’Connor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Chief Minister, when will you be honest with Territorians and tell them the true value of the government’s commitment to this project? The real value of the rezoned land that has been given to this project has never publicly been divulged and it is substantially more than the value before rezoning.
I know the Chief Minister says that we will make $88m or thereabouts on the deal, but one question she has not answered is how much is the Valuer-General’s valuation of the rezoned land. You know that this has been asked before and you steadfastly refuse to answer it.
However, in the event that you do eventually answer this question in an honest, up-front way, it may be that the answer is substantially more money than the money that you have attached to it. If that is the case, the Territory taxpayer is the loser. That is the very question that the Chief Minister has repeatedly refused to answer.
Another question that, obviously, needs to be raised in the context of our discussion about the waterfront proposal is: how much will the environmental clean-up cost be? What will the cost be if you encounter unexploded ordnance from World War II, for instance? Your department continues to change plans to suit the consortium. The loss of the marina and the suggestion that the lock will be retrofitted - that means it is years away - shows that your government is yielding to every consortium demand at the expense of one consortium partner, the taxpayer - Territorians.
Chief Minister, the Darwin City Council has rejected ownership of the wave pool. Just who will own that asset?
You said in your statement that you have ongoing discussions with Defence. When will the relevant issues be resolved? We note that you made no mention of an end point to those discussions.
Madam Speaker, one of the major participants in the convention centre from day one has been a Territory firm, Airductor. This long-time Territory firm has built up its infrastructure to perform up to the standard that was expected of it. This included buying equipment and employing staff. Now, this Territory company has learned from one of its own contractors that it is no longer involved as expected. I understand lives have been planned around this project and that the firm had a reasonable expectation that it would participate. Now, Airductor has found out that a Brisbane firm, AE Smith, has been awarded the contract. Make no mistake, the airconditioning component of the waterfront project is huge and we are not talking about a few split systems. This local firm and its employees and their families are, I am advised, devastated. I further understand that the company is facing substantial financial loss as a result.
The government has let down the local business community. We, on this side of the House, do not understand why they are treating local families like this. We know how much these sorts of things can hurt local businesses as well as the human beings behind them. We ask whether the Chief Minister cares.
In conclusion, the opposition supports the waterfront and the convention centre development. No member of government should come into this Chamber and peddle the rubbish, the garbage, that the CLP does not support it. That is wrong. Every time you say it, we will have a go at you. I have said it repeatedly, and let me say it one more time: the CLP supports this project. That is why the CLP proposed it, that is why the CLP started it, and if you do not believe me …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … we have some earlier plans upstairs in the Leader of the Opposition’s office and I can show them to you if you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: So do not come in here and say we opposed it, we never had any idea. Absolute rubbish! To peddle lies like that you should all be condemned.
Madam Speaker, once again - and it happened last week and none of them should be poker players - I always know when I am on a good thing because they get noisy. They all start to twitch and they jump up and down, and they move in ways that they do not usually move.
Let me say it again: the CLP supports the waterfront project; that is because it was the CLP’s idea. We are delighted that the Labor government has picked it up and is having a go. However, as I said, we are well paid for the job we do and we, whether you like it or not, intend to fulfil our duty. All we ask in return is that, if we are fulfilling our duty to Territorians, you fulfil yours.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister in this statement today. I am also pleased to note, once and for all in a fairly unequivocal fashion, the Leader of the Opposition has stated support for this project. Mind you, she does it in a rather strange way. No sooner than having committed opposition support to the project, she then unleashes 30 minutes of venom and vindictive allegations against the project, most of which I believe will be put to rest when my colleague, the minister responsible for infrastructure and planning, rises to his feet. The next thing we will be told by the Country Liberal Party opposition is that it was their idea to roll out secondary education into remote indigenous communities. Nothing would surprise me.
We know that they had a convention centre of sorts on the books. Why else would did they pull down that beautiful building? Why else did they ruin the face of Darwin by destroying one of the great buildings of this city, the Hotel Darwin, and turn it into a car park? That is where the CLP convention centre was - a dirty, dusty car park when we came to government. It costs you $2 to park your car there in place of what was one of our finest buildings that ought to have been preserved. That was the CLP’s convention centre when we came to government in August 2001.
However, I do not want to concentrate on the negatives; I want to concentrate on the positives of this project. This project will be the signature of Darwin. It will transform this city in a way that few other projects might. It will deliver a statement to the rest of this country and, indeed, the world, about the dynamism of this young capital city, and it will add another feature to tourism and business visitation to this centre.
Much of that attraction goes in an around the design of the convention centre itself, because it will make this building one of the most recognisable buildings of northern Australia. It will represent both a tropical and a northern Australian image to our own nation and to the world at large, in a similar way, I would hope, that the Sydney Opera House represents Australia and Sydney to the world and represents the pre-eminence of Sydney as the centre of cultural change through its time. So too, in time, the Darwin convention centre and exhibition complex will be reflective of us and our city.
It also reflects the dynamics of the city, as I said. Certainly, since we came to office, we have spent considerable time and energy bringing to fruition the legislative reworking of our planning system. We have put in place a government architect and we are now seeing the reflection of the government’s commitments to all of the dynamic elements of our community. The waterfront reflects open space and establishes a clear green belt. It reflects a mixed mode of space and density. It draws on our history but, at the same time, defines our future and a similar thinking to that which has gone into the establishment of the planning scheme for the Myilly Point headland - open space, green, practical density, and a reflection of our statement as a community.
The waterfront project will put in place a construction program that will be spread over the best part of a decade-and-a-half. It will provide work in the construction industry for a considerable period of time, allowing decent planning by business and some evening out of the boom/bust cycle that we have witnessed for many years in the Northern Territory. A project like this can be built, and will be built, in such a way as to maximise and promote the use of apprentices and trainees to allow us to continue a pursuit of that strong training agenda which we have and which, of course, will benefit the Territory and Australia for many years to come.
As the Chief Minister said, a minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry, with $250m going into the local economy over the next three years alone. That, combined with projects such as the removal of the tank farm, the development of Lyons, the ongoing development of Darwin, and major industrial infrastructure projects, means our construction industry does have a bright future in the Territory. Of course, that means the Territory economy shares the brightness of that future, because the construction industry is a significant driver of the Territory economy.
The Chief Minister has described the government’s financial commitment to the project. It is a commitment that has come about after much careful thought and negotiation. I congratulate all those involved. The Chief Minister has described how the commitment is limited and contains maximum amounts so it ensures that the government’s interests are protected. I will not restate the situation beyond saying that the government is happy that the arrangement will protect the Territory’s interest, while providing to the Territory infrastructure to deliver solid economic growth.
Given the significant benefits of this project, both in direct and indirect terms, both short term and longer term, I was astounded, as were my colleagues, when the CLP rejected the project at the last election …
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Dr Lim: That is not true; read …
Mr Henderson: You said you would scrap it.
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Mr STIRLING: You said you would scrap it. You said you would scrap the project.
Dr Lim: That is a lie.
Mr Henderson: Bring in the quotes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: They can say what they like; they said they would scrap it at the last election. That is why I am pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition this morning say: ‘Let me state that I support this project, but …’ and there are 15 or 20 ‘buts’ after that. Nonetheless, that opposition mentality to the project may be dissipating and that is good; if the opposition does get behind this project and supports it in the way that this side of the House, when in opposition, fully supported the railway.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the statement and, indeed, proud to support the project.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, as minister for business, economic and regional development, I am a very proud supporter of this waterfront project. As the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister have said, it is really going to be a defining signature for this wonderful capital city of ours and, certainly, a great return on investment for the dollars that the taxpayer is putting in.
I am aghast at the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking, supposedly, in support of this statement. It is good to see that, finally, after a couple of years of debate about this particular project in this House as proceedings have been worked through, the opposition has agreed to ask for a comprehensive briefing on that project. It is a move forward in opposition members trying to get their head across the complexities of this particular project - even identifying, in her first couple of paragraphs in support of this statement, that they needed a briefing - that it was a very complex financial and commercial structure put in place to support this public private partnership.
The Leader of the Opposition then proceeded, in total ignorance of the facts, to make a series of wild allegations in regard to the details of this project. You cannot come in here and say: ‘Look, it is great, I support the project in concept; we do need a briefing because it is difficult’, and then make a whole heap of totally unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations about the project. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, in trying to say you support the project and then continuing - as the opposition has done for the last couple of years - to white-ant public confidence in this project every single step of the way. The opposition either supports it or they do not. Before they come out and publicly make statements that have no basis in fact and seek to undermine the confidence in this project - not only ordinary Territorians, but the business community’s confidence in this project - I would urge her to get her facts straight.
Moving towards my support, not only for the project but the statement, there have been few announcements more eagerly awaited by the Darwin business community than that of the government reaching financial close for the Darwin City Waterfront project. Without detracting in any way from the great results settled on in May this year, it has certainly been the case that, for too long, our capital city, the only tropical capital in the nation, has been without a convention centre. While the Top End has been able to cater for the small to medium conference market there have been limitations. The convention centre will extend the business tourism season and, along with the broader waterfront attractions, these features will add sustainable jobs in hospitality, accommodation and tourism generally.
It took the vision, determination, willpower and hard work of the Martin government to make this happen. No previous government came close to doing so. For the opposition to say: ‘We would have done it’, again, they are bringing their plans down here because, in those plans that you had for the waterfront there was no convention centre. The vast amount of public space was a car park and no real substantial progress was made in doing anything at all down there. The opposition was very mute. Well, they were not mute - they were hostile.
They were originally hostile when the government came out and said that we would be siting the convention centre at the waterfront. Hansard and press clippings are full of public statements at the time that that would be the worst place to build the convention centre; the convention centre should be built up in the CBD somewhere. The then Leader of the Opposition trotted out a couple of sites. One of their mates was out there running the line that the convention centre had to be in town, it had to be next to particular sectional interests in terms of their property holdings in town. The opposition was all over the public record saying the last place that they would put the convention centre was at the waterfront. It is good to see that they now have a change of heart.
The government set out two years ago to use its offer of $100m to draw in private sector interest to work in partnership on the redevelopment of the waterfront, utilising the convention centre as the centrepiece of the project to fire interest in what will be a world-class development. I remind honourable members that this site is, essentially, a degraded, no-go industrial area, currently with just a small strip of people-friendly development around Stokes Hill Wharf. The site will be transformed into a superb waterfront development unlike any other, but rivalling the best of them. It will be a precinct to which we can take our kids, in which we will enjoy the company of friends, where people can get married, and which will attract many people from all parts of the world.
Amongst our great attributes are our aspirations and the strength of commitment to follow through to see these aspirations become reality. This project is a demonstration of these attributes. It will re-position Darwin on the map nationally and globally. This development offers the best of both worlds. For a nett outlay of $144m in today’s terms, the government gets an iconic international convention and exhibition centre together with community infrastructure on waterfront access valued around $160m. It gets an overall development project worth $1.1bn to provide a stable work base for the construction sector to grow from, thereby creating and producing sustainable jobs and wealth opportunities for the next decade at least. No wonder the business community and Darwin people have got behind this project. It is a further demonstration of the way we as a government do business.
Primacy of place for economic development and job creation must stay with the private sector. This is where the rigours of the marketplace will ensure we provide lasting opportunities for Territorians. It is the private sector that provides the jobs, capital and surpluses that lead to further investments being made. The government can facilitate this approach and will continue to do so through strategic interventions like the provision of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre. But to meet our ambitious social policies ensuring access to opportunities for all, we need well grounded, economic development provided by major projects like the waterfront.
I am delighted to be part of achieving this dream. I have taken a close interest in the project and, as the newly appointed minister for business, economic and regional development, I will continue to do so as it develops, particularly in Stage 1 being completed by 2008. I also want to make my own commitment to the next economic development strategy for the Martin government. I, and my department, will take a lead role in this work. The waterfront is not just bricks and mortar alone. Its symbolism for the Top End is powerful. It is the flagship of the broader objectives I want to set down for our future development.
At base, it starts with providing a safe and secure community for our people. The fundamental objective is joined by the provision of sustainable commercial opportunities affecting the quality of our lives, those of our families and our neighbours, be they living in Darwin or the bush.
Neither safe communities nor commercial opportunities will last unless we also build cohesive neighbourhoods where people from disparate parts and cultures can collectively grasp a high sense of place and embrace a sense of pride of place. This requires attention to cultural and social considerations, recognising their importance in strengthening the fabric of society in bringing a sense of unity to the people and thereby underpinning long-term economic development. The waterfront development will do this. It is not just a $1.1bn project alone, although that in itself is impressive.
Allow me to give a personal vision of how I would like our city to look in 20 years from now, much of which will turn on the waterfront project. It is about linking the Botanic Gardens to the north of the city with a premier waterfront to the south, which itself will be enshrouded by deep shade. The natural pathways between either point will be via our magnificent Esplanade and Bicentennial Park to the west, and the soon to commence residential development to the east where the fuel tank farm now stands, but whose decommissioning is imminent. Encircling these features on three sides is our magnificent harbour. In pride of place at the centre of all of this is the central business district. The development will re-energise our city centre by becoming a drawcard for locals and visitors alike.
It is now the time for there to be confidence in investing in the heart of Darwin like no other period in our history. There is no doubt for a city of some 100 000 people, we have a city heart to be proud of with an outstanding future reflective of the opportunities that lie ahead. I am sure that the waterfront will inject new and additional levels of confidence in the CBD, some evidence of which we can already see.
The waterfront is not separate from the city, but an integral part of it. The statutory corporation managing the public domain elements of the precinct will ensure marketing and promotion is coordinated with promotions more broadly for the city of Darwin. The Avenue of Honour will be the premier link to the mall from the waterfront. It will be designed to recognise those people who have made a significant contribution to our city, be they indigenous, entrepreneurial, political, or those who have defended or rebuilt Darwin. The avenue will encourage pedestrians to move freely between the quarters, vital for the economic life of the retail and hospitality sectors.
Darwin City Council has engaged urban designers Hassell to provide a development plan for the mall. This group, led by Ken Maher, has an exceptional record of achievement here and abroad. It is the same group responsible for the design of both the waterfront precinct and the Avenue of Honour link between the precinct and the mall. Some of Hassell’s work includes the Qantas domestic terminal and Olympic Park Train Station in Sydney, Waterfront City as part of Docklands Melbourne, and the Yangpu Knowledge and Innovation Community in Shanghai among many other notable achievements.
In short, we have a unique opportunity to work with local enterprise, the consortium and the Darwin City Council to ensure an overall plan for significant parts of the city is produced in a considered and creative manner. I would like to see a partnership of government, council and private landowners in the city to contribute their time and resources in a collaborative venture that will see substantial landscaping of the entire city peninsula, making it a pleasant and comfortable CBD to stroll throughout. Public art and heritage in the waterfront precinct will add to the attractions to that place and, again, these themes can be extended through the Avenue of Honour to the rest of the city.
Cultural attractions, too, are very important to ensure the balance between personal privacy and a thriving, publicly accessible precinct is maintained. In this regard, an indigenous cultural centre supplemented by the contribution that other cultures have made to Darwin’s development would be a wonderful attractor. Local industry participation and job opportunities will be significant despite the doomsayers opposite: around 1000 direct jobs in construction and 200 jobs in operation.
I would like to congratulate these local firms which are already directly associated with the consortium, including: the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture; Macmahons NT, which, as we all know, was formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell, formerly known as Spowers Architects; Connell Mott McDonald; MKEA Architects; Rider Hunt; and Knight Frank.
I urge the opposition, if you do not believe that there are going to be substantial economic benefits and return on investment, go and knock on doors. There are seven companies I have named. Talk to them and ask them what they believe these contracts will mean to their business here in Darwin. I am sure you will get a very positive response. This project will be a shot in the arm for the Territory’s construction sector. Talk to John Baker of the TCA and ask him what he thinks this project will do for the construction industry in Darwin. Have a chat to him. I am sure he would love to talk to you, and I am sure he will be very positive about this project as he has been publicly.
The project will be a shot in the arm for the Northern Territory’s construction sector, with up to $1bn in development activity being pumped into the Northern Territory economy over the next 10 to 15 years. Ongoing operations of the world-class tourism, business, recreational and residential precinct will continue to inject significant opportunities into the Northern Territory economy on an ongoing basis. A minimum of 85% in construction value will go to local industry.
In Stage 1 of the project delivering the Darwin convention and exhibition centre operated by Ogden IFC, the apartment hotel operated by the Medina Apartment Group and significant community infrastructure together with some small retail and commercial space, there is estimated to be about $250m in local expenditure. Each of these component parts will have a local industry participation plan, contracting 85% for local employment and the sourcing of goods and services, and containing warrantable commitments, such as an establishment of indigenous scholarships, undertaking economic studies, establishing local offices where these have not already been established, and implementing employment and training plans. Similar arrangements will apply for the operations phase of the convention centre.
The economic stimulation to the CBD will be considerable, drawing residents and visitors alike back to Darwin’s heart through a significant enhancement of the peninsula’s built form and landscaping. The project will provide a real and sustained boost for all those associated with the provision of goods and services in Darwin, Berrimah and Palmerston. Once up and running, the precinct will provide a wealth of jobs in the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors and offer great opportunities to many Territorians.
On Defence considerations, these matters are important to me, with Defence Support being one of my portfolio responsibilities. They are vitally important to the small business owners and operators of Darwin, particularly those on the peninsula. Defence discussions have been frequent over the last two years, ranging from fuel use of the Iron Ore Wharf; for secure berthing and bulk fuel discharge, through to port access issues generally; groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of Defence fuel storage facilities and related infrastructure and port security requirements.
Ongoing consultations with Defence continue. I have a clear interest in ensuring these consultations are conducted constructively and conclude successfully. I give that assurance to the growing number of local industries which are allied to, and demonstrate increasing dependence on, the Defence sector. I am confident that the number of Naval and cruise ship visits will be maintained and grow as the waterfront development proceeds.
In regard to the latter, the government is committed to the provision of a cruise ship facility. The facility was originally proposed as a separate project to be located at Fort Hill Wharf outside the Darwin City Waterfront redevelopment site. Last year, the government undertook a scoping study and, following a decision to include the cruise ship facility as part of the waterfront development, identified the optimum first stage would cost in the order of $4.5m. Accordingly, agreement has been reached with the consortium to include design and construction of the first stage of the facility as part of the waterfront project.
To conclude, there can be no better way for the Northern Territory to position itself for the start of the new century than with this project. We need to identify and build on our comparative advantages and, through this, diversify the economic base of the economy. Our economy has been characterised by boom/bust cycles for much of the last 100 years. The reality is that growth will continue to be volatile for some time to come, but the waterfront project will moderate this volatility, putting a stable and sustainable base under our economy.
Our potential lies in the Northern Territory’s dominant location in northern Australia’s development; development that will drive the Australian economy as we move increasingly into the 21st century. Darwin, in particular, holds a commanding position in northern Australia and the near international region; a position to be exploited. The convention centre will assist in this process. I am confident it will be a major stimulant to improve air services into the Top End, particularly international services, and that must be good for business; and a major stimulant to more hotels, improving the occupancy rate through the hospitality sector and extending the trading season. After all, Darwin is at its best from January to March and, with a convention centre and waterfront, we will at last be able to draw people to the city at this beautiful time of year, marketing the Top End as a year-round destination for business tourism. It really is very exciting, and I just cannot wait for the convention centre to open.
We can see, despite of the negativity of the Leader of the Opposition, extraordinary confidence returning to the Territory economy. People can certainly see it. Real estate is one of the key barometers of any economy as people seek to position themselves for the growth that they know is going to come. The NT News had this publication inserted in it just a few days ago. It is the Real Estate Local Market Analysis from the real estate industry, June 2005 quarter ‘Oh, what a year. The 2004 financial year breaks new ground’. This is the confidence that is in the marketplace; the confidence that is out there where the Territory is heading. This is not government hype, or media spin; this is confidence from not only Territorians but people from interstate and overseas investing in the Northern Territory. That is because we are going places. The convention centre and waterfront development is part of the confidence that is in the market at the moment and is continuing to grow.
For the opposition to still be trying to preach doom and gloom and that, somehow, we are not going to achieve – they are out on their own. The market is saying something different. I have a few media releases from business groups. The Chamber of Commerce, 10 May 2005, CEO Graham Poon said:
- With work commencing immediately and 85% of local content component guaranteed in the project contracts,
this is a positive boost for the local job market …
There are numerous other comments. Again, from Graham Poon on 2 June in the NT News:
- For tourism it spells the beginning of a new era.
NT News, 13 May:
- NT tourism leaders yesterday threw their support behind Darwin’s new $1.1bn waterfront project. They believe
everyone in the city will benefit from the development, which will also show Darwin to the rest of the nation.
It just goes on and on. We have the Leader of the Opposition in here …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: … I wish she would follow.
_______________
Debate suspended for luncheon adjournment.
________________
Debate suspended for luncheon adjournment.
________________
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of senior citizens from Brennan, Sanderson, Drysdale, Millner and Nightcliff electorates; members of the Chung Wah Society and interstate visitors. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I further draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of three staff from the Underground Power Project in Nightcliff, Mr Ken Frazer, Ms Wendy Jefferies and Mr Michael Wright, who is the consultant with the project. On behalf of honourable members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Statement - Darwin City Waterfront Development – Financial Close
Note Statement - Darwin City Waterfront Development – Financial Close
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the waterfront development is one of those projects that certainly appears good for Darwin and the Northern Territory. No doubt, as you have heard in the statement, it is a project from the government’s perspective that is perfect and positive as well as public and private. Straightaway that would worry me because it sounds like something out of the real estate industry sales book on positive phrases, or how to turn a flooded block into your wildlife park - apologies to the member for Port Darwin.
Whilst I am a supporter of developing the waterfront, will the improvement just take all the sweet words, the background music, the glossy brochures, the not-to-be photographed model displayed at Casuarina and what the Chief Minister has said just as gospel and, therefore, without comment? I do not want to be part of the blind leading the blind, but I believe we do need to look at the project and look at it carefully.
The project has invoked words like ‘prestigious, exciting, vibrant, pride, magnificent, celebrate, iconic and significant’, and phrases like ‘exciting new dimension, vibrant space, superbly located, economic stimulation, environmental and civic showpiece, rich cultural past, dynamic presence, promising future, considerable economic outcome, bold and highly attractive, significantly better financial outcome, value for money for the Territory, considerable stimulus, and a flourishing precinct’.
That is why I become a little concerned that it does sound like real estate rhetoric. Therefore, I have brought forward some concerns I have and some expressed to me by others. What was most disappointing at the beginning of this project was the initial removal of the public from the process. The public was not allowed to see the other designs. This made sure they were not involved in the final design for the waterfront that was selected. There were three designs, two of which were rejected, and those two the public were not allowed to see. For me, that was a sad thing for a government which promoted community consultation.
The land on which the redevelopment is to occur belongs to the people; it is the people’s money and the people should have had a fair say in the choice of design. Unfortunately, it was a case of ‘trust me, I am from the government’, and like it or lump it. Then there was the original statement by the government on 11 August 2003 that the project would cost Territorians $100m that will go towards building the convention centre and some other infrastructure headworks such as headworks, land improvement, remediation of contaminated areas, coastal protection and readying the entire site for development. This is where I had some confusion.
However, in today’s statement, the government’s figure is said to be $115m for the convention centre and $91m for the community infrastructure. Whilst the figure for the convention centre now appears to be $115m, is not totally clear in the statement what is included in that $115m. For instance, are the costs of $75m based on a $3m per annum payment over five years for operational support included in that figure?
Ms Martin: Twenty-five years.
Mr WOOD: Twenty-five years, which is $75m. Then there is the community infrastructure Stage 1 where the Chief Minister says there will be a maximum payment of $94.6m for design, construction and finance of this stage. Elsewhere, it says $91m. If you put these figures together, you get roughly $216m. I would like the Chief Minister to explain a little more about those figures.
Chief Minister, if you look in this year’s budget, you will also find government is spending, under the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment $7.3m for Stage 3. I do not know what Stage 3 is but is says Stage 3 in the budget, which is the headworks to the waterfront precinct boundary to enable the developer to service the Darwin convention centre and exhibition centre. That makes the total $233m. The question I ask is: is that figure mentioned in the budget actually the figure of $7.7m you mentioned in your statement for Stage 1? I have some confusion between what the budget says and what the statement says.
If you want to make it even more confusing, there are incentives - unspecified to the owners and operators - and an unavailability payment - which is not explained – of around $12m paid in the first year and subsequent quarterly payments paid on a quarterly basis over the next 25 years. It is, clearly, very difficult from the figures given in this statement, to have a real handle on how much money the government is actually spending on this project. It begs the question: is that deliberate or does not anyone in the government use plain English and plain sums anymore?
There needs to be questions asked about whether all the government expenditure has been accounted for. For instance, does the government believe, when it states $41.8m for the marine works, that it has covered everything? For example, presently the mud is being checked out for unexploded munitions. If there are problems with removing these munitions, is the figure of $41.8m an accurate figure? There is also a certain amount of confusion about how much toxic waste is going to be dumped at Shoal Bay. I will re-phrase that: there was a certain amount of confusion over how much contaminated soil would be composted and treated, and for how long, at the Shoal Bay Recycling Depot …
Ms Martin: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: I thought you would like that. Has this issue been finalised, and what are the costs? They are issues I raised with the Estimates Committee. They are the costs, if they have not been sorted out, that could change, for instance, the figure here of $41.8 for marine works.
The other matter the government should clearly state is: what are the costs that are not shown but are paid for by the government; how many consultants have been employed in the short term or long term; how many lawyers involved in the legal side of things have been employed outside the Department of Justice; how many experts have been brought in from elsewhere and used to give all sorts of advice on other matters to government; how many of these costs are included in these costs highlighted today or have these costs been absorbed by government elsewhere?
The Chief Minister briefly touched on this under the paragraph titled ‘Other costs’. There is no indication of how much the other costs add up to and, if you read what the Chief Minister means when she says, ‘What are the other costs?’ - and I will get to page 18 and it is a short paragraph:
- Other costs include consultant costs, the costs of undertaking environmental studies, demolition and removal costs,
the Territory payment for unsuccessful bidders’ costs, and the headwork costs, which include roads, power, water
and sewerage.
I believe the ‘other costs’ are quite substantial, but have been conveniently glossed over by the next paragraph in the statement:
- I reiterate that these costs are offset by, among other benefits, $7m in public art contributions and $63m in community
infrastructure invested by the consortium.
But, then, not to say what the dollar figure for the other costs is sounds like someone is hiding the real costs. The public wants to know the costs and the benefits, but not one without the other. Therefore, whilst it might be good to hear what would offset the costs, we actually do not have any details of what the other costs would be. Perhaps the headwork costs are what are being referred to in the budget, but I certainly believe that this statement - for someone to look at the total costs that government has spent so far - is lacking, quite poorly. That section ‘other costs’ should have been much clearer and defined exactly how much money was involved.
On top of that, there was a statement that in relation to the convention centre, the owners and operators during the period - that is 25 years - will be provided with incentives to attract national and international delegates. What sort of incentives is the government talking about when it is already contributing $3m per year for operational support? Is the government really telling the whole truth about how much the government is spending on this project, or is it trying to confuse the public with tricky figures and spin, instead of speaking plainly and putting all costs on the table for people to see?
The simple question is: is the cost to the taxpayer $100m as was mentioned in August 2003, $115m as mentioned here, $144m when you take into account – I will get the correct terminology …
Ms Martin: The returns on land value.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the returns on the property, thank you. … $215m when you count up the $115m plus the $96m for community work, or is it closer to $300m?
There are two other concerns that I and, I believe, Territorians have. The first is the amount of residential development within the waterfront. The Chief Minister has not covered this issue in this statement. Whilst, as I said at the beginning, people support the development of the waterfront, I believe many people either want no residential or limited residential development because they reckon the land should be open space. With the government saying this deal is done, there is probably nothing that will change their mind about the density of residential development, but the government should be clear on exactly how many people will reside within the waterfront development.
What is the time line for the construction of the residential area? What effect will it have on residential sales elsewhere in Darwin? Or will residential developments in Darwin like the 33-storey building and - I am not sure whether approved yet – the 26-storey building, make it harder to sell waterfront units? If the government has done the calculations, will they make those available? Are there more details of residential development?
Whilst there have been plans and models shown, it would be good to hear from the Chief Minister more details of the residential development, especially considering that the government is saying the estimates it will receive are $191m nominal price from the property arrangements - such things as when the residential development is to commence; the details of Stage 1 and Stage 2; and what numbers of people the government now expects to reside at the wharf. If sales are not as optimistic as the government has allowed for because of leaner returns in its calculations, what effect will that have on the Chief Minister’s linking the property returns to a budget balance that will be restored by 2008-09?
I must admit I get a little confused after that because we start dealing with issues. I accept the point that one day I will get a briefing. However, they talk about discount rates and public sector comparators. I say that is starting to get into fiscal language, if you are not careful. What are those things about, and how do they relate to the financial success, or otherwise, of this project?
The second matter that is of concern is a lack of proper cost benefit analysis - and I have mentioned this many times before - to show Territorians that if it is $100m or $300m or whatever of their money is spent on this project, there will be a return of X dollars to the community by ways of jobs, tourism, construction, etcetera. The Chief Minister has gone some ways towards this when she says there will be an additional $190m generated in additional tourism, and 1000 jobs in the construction phase and 200 direct jobs. This is all fine, but it is certainly not comprehensive, nor does it give any details on how these figures were calculated, nor does it cover the full range of benefits.
Chief Minister, with the piles of technical reports I have loading my desk regarding the physical infrastructure at the waterfront, it seems amazing that the government does not have a public document showing a cost benefit analysis of the project. Or have we gone down the yellow brick road to the land of development without clearly having before us what the benefits are, in dollar terms, to the community? Surely, those key advisors to the Territory, as you mentioned in your statement, who have endorsed this project as representing value for money, would be able to tell others the details behind how they came up with this endorsement.
It would also have been good to see what the running costs will be for the convention centre, exhibition centre, wave pool, community infrastructure, and the residential, and whether those costs be covered either through entry charges, rent, or hire charges or rates. Will the entry charges, fee and rates cover the running costs, or will the government have to budget each year to pick up the difference?
Deputy Chief Minister, I ask: what about the cost of the statutory authority? The establishment cost is $1m, and it is probably coming from the swimming pool money at Freds Pass, but the question is: what will be the running costs? Will it cover all functions that would normally be done by Darwin City Council, such as animal control plus all the other by-laws? I would be interested to know whether you have budgeted for an ongoing running cost of the statutory authority.
Even though I raise these issues, I still believe the project is good. There will be a wave pool, which will be great. The lagoon will be great for people to go boating, and the exhibition and conference centre will be of great benefit to Darwin, and the facilities will be welcome.
As a member of this parliament, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not ask some pretty good questions, particularly about the amount of public funds going into the project. One can be carried away by the glitz of a shiny new project, but many a large project like this has come tumbling down at the taxpayers’ expense because of blow-outs or poor returns, or whatever. On a project of this size, government should be up-front about all its costs, especially not hidden under the smokescreen of commercial confidentiality …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr WOOD: In the estimates, that was asked. The public was told $100m was the total input into the project only two years ago. This now seems to have blown out towards $300m ...
Mr Henderson: $144m – maximum.
Mr WOOD: Uh-uh. That is after you deduct - we need to know how much the government will spend and then you can also say we will get the return, but we are getting the nett return ...
Ms Martin: We are paying a mortgage.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but we need to know how much you are putting forward. Your nett return is only based on the sales that you hope will happen. I hope they do happen. You can at least tell people what we are investing in it and how much the other costs are. As I said, the other costs are not analysed and it is important that we know them.
I hope that the waterfront project will invoke words like ‘prestigious, exciting, vibrant, pride, magnificent, celebrate, iconic’ and ‘significant’ and phrases like ‘exciting new dimension, vibrant space, superbly located, economic stimulation, environmental and civic show piece, rich cultural park, dynamic presence, promising future, considerable economic benefit, bold and highly attractive, significantly better financial outcome, value for money for the Territory, considerable stimulus and a flourishing precinct’. Doesn’t that sound like something out of the real estate manual, member for Port Darwin?
Mr Henderson: Absolutely!
Mr WOOD: It would worry me if that were the case.
Mr Henderson: The market is never wrong, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I know those old houses that are ‘a handyman’s paradise’. If this happens, it will be great, but do not let the excitement of this glorious monument of the Martin Labor government be looked at as the new pyramids of Darwin cloud the fact that parliament might be a great place to promote the real estate, but it is also the place to make sure the money entrusted to you by taxpayers is spent carefully.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Chief Minister’s statement.
I must admit that I am a great supporter of the waterfront development, and have been since the days of the CLP government. I recall when I heard that the CLP government had intentions to develop the waterfront, I was very excited. I am from Europe where many big cities are going through an urban renewal process, and many of them have redeveloped old commercial infrastructure, docklands and harbours into exciting new projects.
Unfortunately, it was too good to be true. When I saw the first plan, I was amazed: it was an island in the middle of the harbour. There was a bridge connecting the island to Darwin, and then to Mandorah. There was redevelopment of the waterfront with a big rotunda, and no one knew what it was, surrounded by enormous space of brick paving. There was no shade and no other development. The most exciting thing was the avenue leading from the waterfront to the Smith Street Mall.
It triggered my memory of Nicolai Ceausescu re-designing Bucharest during the era of Communist supremacy, when he designed a 16-lane highway leading to nowhere. There was no vision, there was no fantasy. It was redevelopment for the sake of redevelopment. What was the point of spending all the money on a design to develop the biggest car park in the Northern Territory? What was the point of putting an island in the middle of the harbour, despite the enormous cost, to connect a city of 100 000 with a village of about 100 in Mandorah at that time?
Certainly, Mandorah will develop in the next 20 or 30 years, but why spend the money now when it can be used somewhere else? I was very perplexed. I have to say that the Territory, compared with other jurisdictions in Australia, is a small territory, big in area, small in population, and Darwin, similarly, is a small place. It is a small place but with huge potential.
Darwin has what a realtor would say ‘position, position, position’. And it is true. Darwin is a place where you take three-and-a-half hours to go to Perth, four-and-a-half hours to Adelaide, two hours to Alice Springs, four hours to Brisbane, but only three-and-a-half hours to Singapore, three-and-a-quarter hours to Brunei and about three hours to Jakarta. Darwin is a place where, to the south there are about 18 million people, to the north about half a billion people. Darwin is located in a port that is three times the size of Sydney, and about 10 to 20 days closer to ports in Asia. If you do not believe me, you only have to go outside and have a look at the port today. There are seven cattle ships waiting there to load. Why do they not go to Wyndham, or to Queensland? Because they can get the same resources from here, and they can sail much quicker to their place of destination.
The potential of Darwin had not been realised in the 1980s when it should have been realised. People rely upon tourists. In the past 10 to 20 years, the pattern of tourism changed significantly. People would travel to Darwin and spend one or two weeks here as part of their holidays. People now will fly to Darwin, spend one night in Darwin, three days in Kakadu, one night in Darwin and back out again. Even the backpackers who used to do the Broome, Darwin, Cairns route do not seem to do that any more; they arrive in Darwin and fly in and fly out. Their habits have changed because of the lower cost of flying, people are more mobile and they can spend more time in different places with the same amount of money. Things have changed.
There were attempts by the previous government to cash in on the tourism industry with the Crowne Plaza, which used to be the Sheraton when it was developed, and the Uluru tourist complex. However, one thing they overlooked was conference tourism. Conference tourism will see people in Australia travelling from Brisbane to Perth, or from Perth to Adelaide, or from Perth to Sydney, or anywhere else in Australia to attend conferences. On some occasions, people from Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide will fly over Darwin to go to Bali or Malaysian resorts to attend a conference. There was never an idea of a conference centre, until somebody came up with an idea to establish a conference centre in the vicinity of the parliament, hence the demise of the Hotel Darwin.
This morning, I heard the member for Greatorex say: ‘Concrete cancer! Concrete cancer!’ Your own department’s report indicated that there was no concrete cancer. Your own department report at the time, when Tim Baldwin was the minister, indicated that the Hotel Darwin did not suffer any structural damage; it only required about $50 000 in repairs and about $25 000 a year maintenance to maintain. But, of course, it was very convenient to demolish it because somebody wanted to convert it to a convention centre that never eventuated.
The development of Darwin, the railway and the port has opened up new opportunities for Darwin. First of all, moving the port to East Arm has freed a significant parcel of land near the waterfront that can be converted to a fantastic development. It has happened in other places. The Melbourne Docklands come to mind, Darling Harbour in Sydney, and redevelopments in South Perth with the old gas works, and the old railway yards in Subiaco. When new developments took place, the railway yards moved somewhere else, the ports moved somewhere else, and parcels of land that had been degraded industrial pieces of land have been completely rejuvenated by developing new exciting projects in those areas.
As I said before, the plans by the CLP were big, but they had no imagination. There was a consultation initially by the CLP, a lot of criticism and a lot of comment. When we came to power in 2001 and we found the old CLP plans, we decided that we would not go along with that particular plan, we had to have our own new ideas. While we did, we proceeded with new community consultation. In fact, the community consultation for the waterfront has been significant. I believe there were about three sessions of community consultation in the past three or four years, and what we have now is something that the community has wanted - open space, community infrastructure and, of course, what the business community wants to build, a development that will create a new reality for Darwin.
I am very pleased to see the new plans, and to see the model developed by the proponents of the waterfront development. The member for Nelson said that people do not feel very happy because they had no opportunity to assess the plans the different proponents put forward for the waterfront. Well, commercial-in-confidence comes to mind. I do not think that, if I was a developer proposing to build something that will cost $1.1m, I would like my designs public. How am I going to keep it secret from the other developers? Am I going to keep this element that will make my project unique, and the elements that make my project more attractive to government when it is open to the public, to a public forum, so everybody has a view, especially my competitors?
The consultation with the public in the past four or five years has been significant, and has been very well received. What we learned from the public has been incorporated in the design of the winning proposal, and that is very significant.
However, coming back to the waterfront, when I was in Casuarina attending the display of the model, many people came through. Some people said ‘absolutely horrible, do not want to see it, it is too big, it will change Darwin forever’, but one thing I noticed was that many people - especially people who came from Europe - commented on what a good idea it was, and how it was going to change a piece of degraded, industrial real estate to something new and modern for the people to enjoy.
One of the comments that struck me was a young lady of Greek descent who said that she and her husband bought a unit in Athens and, after seeing the display in Casuarina, they were going to sell it and buy a unit at the waterfront because this is where they are going to retire. People like the idea and the development, even from the model, perhaps because people like to live very close to the water because it reminds them of the areas they came from, where you can go out and sit at the outdoor cafeterias or restaurants, enjoy your meal, and walk back home. That is very important; it is what people want.
However, what is most important also is the fact that this development will take 10 to 15 years to be fully developed; it is a $1.1bn development; it will generate 1000 direct jobs during the construction phase per year; and 230 jobs will be created during operations. What is most important is that the argument that this project will take people away from the CBD is unfounded. I believe that this project will bring people back to the city.
I will tell you about a discussion I had with someone who owns big properties in Darwin. We stood in the middle of Smith Street, near Woolworths, and he told me to look around because there were no people; there was a lot of empty office space and a lot of empty shops. I said to him: ‘I can see it, but what is it? What are they?’ He said: ‘They are office spaces. Great, but where are the people?’ ‘Oh, they live in Casuarina, Nakara, Tiwi, and Marrara’. Exactly, they are not living here. They work here, get in the car, move out and stop in Woolworths in Nightcliff or somewhere in Casuarina to pick up their evening meal. They go where they live in Palmerston, Nakara, Marrara, Moil and they stay there. They will not come here. Unless you bring people to the city, so that these people will do their shopping in the city, and will want to go out and be entertained in the city, or go for a meal in the city, you are not going to see Darwin alive after 5 pm. The only place you will see alive after 5 pm is Mitchell Street where you have the cafeterias, the hotels, the backpackers, people there who come out of their rooms and go down the street to be entertained and enjoy themselves.
This is what the waterfront will do. It will do exactly what the Sydney Darling Harbour has done to Sydney: bring people back to the city. People will buy the units and live there, and go to the taverna, the restaurant, the cafeteria, the small supermarket to do their shopping and be entertained and stay outside. I do not think that the waterfront will affect the CBD. On the contrary, it will enhance the CBD, especially if the interface between the CBD and the waterfront is such that it encourages movement from and to the CBD and the waterfront.
Will it bring more tourism? I have attended conferences in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth. Perth has just completed a convention centre at the waterfront and continues to build on it because it attracts a significant number of delegates nearly every month. Because of those delegates, a number of hotels have sprung up around the convention centre, along with a number of restaurants and cafeterias, that all survive from the convention tourist, which is very significant.
I believe that the Darwin convention and exhibition centre will be an asset for the city and an asset for the Territory because of our distance factor. We cater not only for Australia but we can cater for Asian market, With 1500 seat plenary space, 4000 m of exhibition space, that is the biggest building in Darwin; it is one of the biggest buildings in the northern part of Australia; and it can attract people from Australia and overseas.
The opposition says that they support the waterfront development. It was not long ago that I remember the member for Blain, the then Leader of the Opposition, saying publicly that he would scrap the project if they come to power. When they went out there they realised the opposition of the people, the opposition of the business community, and they immediately changed their tune. Now they are supporting it but, of course, there are problems. The idea of the CLP and some other people would be if we have problems, let us just do nothing - sit there, do nothing. ‘Do not do anything because we might make a mistake’, instead of sitting down and saying: ‘If there are going to be problems how are we going to address them? If we are going to make a mistake, let us put things in place to avoid making the mistakes’.
The waterfront development will be an asset for the city irrespective of which government is in power, ALP, CLP, Liberals or Nationals. The waterfront development will be an asset for the Territory and for Australia. So, instead of us sitting here and bitching about it and playing politics, why do they not support it? If you can see some problems, we would love to hear your solutions. We have not heard any. We only hear about problems. If you think there are going to be mistakes, tell us how we can avoid those mistakes. Let us get together, with people in Darwin, with the business community, with the contractors, with the people who are going to be employed there, to make sure that the waterfront happens.
We heard about workers in other states. The reality is, today, companies are not based in one town only. They just do not have an office based in Melbourne, or in Sydney, or in Darwin. There are companies that are actually based in Australia and have people working London, or in Paris, and they can communicate very easily and quickly. They can design a whole building in Paris and build it in Australia. The reality now is, with the communications and the facilities we have, we do not live in a town, we live in a global village. As for the companies that complain about not getting jobs through the waterfront, again, we have to realise that this is an open market. It is not a dictated economy. This is a market where people have to compete on merit; they have to provide the service and the facilities.
Again, some of the businesses here have only themselves to blame. I recall very well a business here that was approached by the company that will bring the Eurocopters to Darwin. They were asked to provide a service and they faxed back and said they could not do it, it was too big a problem. They did not speak to anyone else, they did not ask any assistance from the government, they just went back and said: ‘We cannot do it, it is too big for us, go somewhere else’. Well, they did, they went to Melbourne. So we lost an opportunity here.
Sometimes we have to look at our outcome abilities, our ability to deliver, and to learn to be more competitive in a global village. We cannot say we are in Darwin, we are a small jurisdiction, we live here, you have to give us all the work or some of the work. Companies do not work like that. Business does not work like that anymore.
We are prepared to support. We have requests from developers to give up to 85% of the work to local businesses and it is already happening: Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture - Sitzler Brothers are locals from Alice Springs; Macmahon formerly Henry Walker Eltin; Hassell; Connell Mort McDonald; Rider Hunt; Knight Frank - all significant local companies, companies with a local presence.
Let us look forward to the development of the waterfront. Let us look forward to the transformation of that degraded industrial site into something unique for the Territory, something for Darwin. We have the opportunity. We have learnt from the mistakes other cities have made when they developed similar projects like the Docklands and Darling Harbour, and we can avoid them, and we can build something unique.
Darwin is the only tropical city in the north of Australia. We are the most northern city in Australia. We have the closest proximity to Asia. People from south comment on how Darwin resembles Asia more than any other Australian city, not only because of its climate, but because of its ethnic and social composition, and also because of the appearance of the city. The waterfront will enhance the city, will provide opportunities for work, and provide for Darwin to be really on the map for international tourism as a centre for international conventions.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, let me put some information in context: I am so disappointed, having heard the Chief Minister and three or four ministers, that they have continued to spin the history of the wharf precinct and its development.
First, go to this newspaper article. This was written in the NT News on Friday, 23 November 2001, soon after the Labor Party won government. It has a picture of the Chief Minister, looking rather unhappy, and the headline is: ‘CLP wharf plan a goer, says Chief Minister’. You can read it for yourself from there, I am sure, Madam Speaker. I will read a few words from the article, written by James Wakelin:
- The government yesterday endorsed a multi-million dollar CLP plan to develop the Darwin wharf precinct.
The member for …
Mr Henderson: Where was the convention centre? Show us where the convention centre was!
Dr LIM: Is this wrong? This is an article in the newspaper …
Mr Henderson: Go on, show us!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … barely months after the Labor Party won government. It goes on:
- But it appears a plan to build a beach in the precinct will be scrapped.
- Darwin Lord Mayor George Brown said it was disappointing that the Chief Minister had talked down the proposal
before public comment had been received: ‘I think the community would love it’.
So, it was there four years ago endorsed by the Chief Minister. I go on with another paragraph from this article:
- Under the wharf plan, first mooted in 1999 as part of the Central Darwin Planning Concepts and Land Use,
the coastal area from Fisherman’s Wharf and Parliament House would be developed.
There, you see: that is the actual history of the wharf precinct. The members for Wanguri, Stuart and Nhulunbuy have been in this place for long enough, as has the member for Fannie Bay, to know that a convention centre was part of the overall planning for the development of Darwin. We had a convention centre; we had the wharf precinct. Yes, two different projects. Yes, the projects were there to benefit Darwin, the Top End and the Northern Territory.
Well and good that this government has chosen another path, and rightly so. You are in government and you can choose what you want. You have chosen to combine the two projects and put them in the wharf precinct. That is your choice. What we wanted to know during the years that we have been debating this issue is: give us all the information; do not hide it.
The Chief Minister on 9 October 2003 had this to say:
- People will want to know what is planned, and we say rightly so.
Of course, rightly so. That is what the opposition has maintained all along. We need to know, we deserve to know, we have the right to know what is being planned in the project and the costings to all the issues that are involved in this development.
Every time we ask, this government says: ‘You are anti-development; you are anti the wharf precinct’. We are not. We have said it time and time again. The Chief Minister, by her own words, accepted that the CLP very much wanted to develop the wharf precinct. In fact, she said that she supported the CLP plan for the wharf precinct.
So, do not come in here creating lies about the CLP and rewriting history. This government is so good at it; their political spin department is very good. They say one thing one day, and within six months, the story is completely different because they keep on spinning and spinning. Eventually, the Mr and Mrs Malaks of this world accept that what the government says today is what they said 12 months or four years ago. Well, it is not. If we go back through history, which is what I have just done, it shows that this government supported what the CLP initiated.
That is the problem with a minister like the member for Casuarina. He gets up, rabbits on and suddenly finds: ‘Oh, oh, I have to swallow my words again’. Did the CLP support the wharf precinct? Here is a letter written on 16 May 2005, written by ABN AMRO. The letter was addressed to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Denis Burke:
- Dear Mr Burke,
Darwin City Waterfront.
We refer to your letter dated 10 May 2005 to Mr Rijkman Groenink and thank you for your support of the
Darwin City Waterfront Development.
Thank you …
And I repeat:
Thank you for your support.
That is a third party endorsement of the CLP supporting …
Mr Henderson: Read the rest of the letter.
Dr LIM: … supporting …
Mr Henderson: Table it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: Are you so resistant to the fact that the CLP supports this?
Mr Henderson: No. I would be interested to see the rest of the letter ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Henderson … because you are …
Ms Carney: You are a touchy little fellow, are you not?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of Government Business!
Dr LIM: It has been a problem for this government that they continue to spin and rewrite history, hoping one day that people will accept them for reality, for truth. It is not. The truth is, in fact, that this lazy government, this very arrogant government, has failed Territorians.
On a day, barely months after a general election that they won so handsomely, with 19 members in this Chamber on the government side, they have no government business, they have to pad today’s work with a couple of statements. That is the arrogance of the government - no legislation to deal with. It is 4 pm and we could have just packed up our books and all gone home today - nothing to do but a couple of statements …
Dr Burns: Are you saying this is not important?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Henderson: You have been calling for this statement for six months.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, please continue.
Dr LIM: When we sought to get a briefing several weeks ago: ‘Oh, there was nobody to give you a briefing, sorry, we cannot give you a briefing. We cannot give you a briefing. We do not have anybody here to do it for you’. Then, before a booking for a briefing was even finalised, out comes the statement. I welcome the statement, I seriously do. At least, for once, we know with some level of detail what this government is about. It has taken a long time coming.
The member for Nelson raised several issues about the finances and how confusing it is. I found it very confusing. I have been trying to compare the figures that have been mentioned by the Chief Minister on various occasions over the last four years. Trying to make some sense out of figures she has provided here today in this statement; it is very hard to follow.
I recall a $100m figure, used so very often previously. This is what they are going to put out for the convention centre and the 25 ha of land. All right, the 25 ha of land, as I can understand from the statement, will now provide the government with a return and, hopefully in the future, that will be a valuable return to the Northern Territory. Later on, there is $150m contribution by the government. Finally, we go down to $144m contribution by the government. So, we do not know where we are.
I propose, and I hope the government will take it on, that we are provided with a spreadsheet. Put it down in detail what the government is providing, what private enterprise is providing, what the money is used for in the different components of the whole project, so we can see clearly what it is. That is all we ask for and, in the Chief Minister’s own words, the public deserves to know; people will want to know. Her words: ‘People will want to know what is planned’. She also said: ‘Rightly so’. Let us have a look at the papers, the figures, in detail so that we can then compare apples with apples, and the same type of apples too.
This whole project has not really been about Territorians. The member for Wanguri got up today and said:
- For a nett outlay of $144m in today’s terms, the government …
I stress:
… the government gets an iconic international convention and exhibition centre, together with community
infrastructure on a waterfront access.
That is the arrogance of this government. This Leader of Government Business gets up and says: ‘We spend Territory money, $144m, and it will provide the government with an iconic international convention centre’. This is a Territory project. It is Territorians who are providing the taxes to pay for this. It is the Territory that should be the focus of this government, not ‘the government’. That is the arrogance that I find so offensive. I concede you won very handsomely, and that is okay. However, for goodness sake, govern for Territorians. Do not govern for yourselves, for your Labor Party, because this is not what it is about. Territorians have put their trust in you to govern for them. Do it for them!
I, on behalf of the opposition, support the convention centre for Darwin. Look at what we have achieved in Alice Springs. Albeit that the current Chief Minister opened the Alice Springs Convention Centre, it was brought to its fruition, almost to completion, by the former CLP government. It has benefited Alice Springs tremendously, and the Alice Springs tourism community has grown with the continuing growth of the convention business. I wish Darwin would have the same; I sincerely do. When talking to many of the businesses in Darwin, people are very keen to see this happen because they can see the benefits that it would draw into the Top End.
Our vision for a convention centre - our vision, the CLP’s vision for the convention centre - was there many years ago. We tried many different ways to bring it to a successful stage, but time beat us. It is not that we were not going to do it; we continued right to the day that the 2001 election was called. We tried to get something going, but time beat us. The convention centre is now going to be built at the wharf precinct - that is the government’s choice, fine. The Country Liberal Party was against it initially because we heard the community saying: ‘Do not build it down there, it will kill the CBD’. That was what the community was telling us and we were messengers: ‘Bring the message to this government’. What this government chose to do was to spin it around, spin the story to say that we were against the development …
Ms Martin: You were.
Dr LIM: No, we were not. We were not, because we were there promoting it! This Chief Minister supported it. Have you seen this article? Can you remember it? Your photograph is there. Do you want me to table it so you can see it? I will table it for you. I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker, so the Chief Minister can look for herself.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: The member for Casuarina said it was the CLP’s road to nowhere. Well, if it was the road to nowhere, then you are building a similar road to nowhere. If you believe that you are building a project that Territorians want, then so did the CLP. At least the CLP was always focused on what the Territory needs, and anything that was going to be built was built by Territorians, not for ‘the government’.
Territorians will be contributing significantly to this project, and it is important for this government to provide us with a clear understanding of where this money is coming from and what it will be spent on. In talking about community infrastructure Stage 1, the Chief Minister listed from marine works right through to the Avenue of Honour. The one thing that was not included is the environmental reparation works which will have to be undertaken on the contaminated land the whole precinct will be based on. We do not know what it is …
Ms Martin: $10m. I said later in the speech $10m.
Dr LIM: I pick up the Chief Minister’s interjection, $10m. $10m! I recall that the statement made by this government was that the government will pick up all costs for environmental reparation works - all costs. Maybe the Chief Minister’s $10m is a ballpark guesstimate figure that will be used. At estimates I raised the issue: how much dirt is going to be shifted. How much contaminated soil is going to be shifted? There was mass confusion! The minister did not know. The CEO gave me a figure and, when I put a counterargument to her, she was not sure because the counterargument also came from her department. The member for Nelson presented a letter from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment which was written to the Darwin City Council explaining how much dirt was going to be taken across to Shoal Bay to be treated and it was a lot of material - a lot more than the department actually agreed to. And finally, a letter was written by this minister, the Minister for Planning and Lands, on 14 July confirming there was a lot more dirt than first provided by the estimates - a lot more. So the minister needs to eat dirt to at least now to give us the right figures.
For the record, what the minister wrote needs to be put into Hansard and I quote this paragraph. The minister knows it very well. Paragraph four of his letter to the member for Nelson:
- The GHD report states that the total volume of hydrocarbon soils to be extracted for the next 10 to 15 years was unknown.
However, for the purpose of the exercise a ‘best estimate’ of 15 m in 2005 and 5000 m per annum thereafter was adopted.
We have been always told that this project has a 15-year life, so we are looking at a substantial amount of contaminated soil that is going to be shifted from the site - that is the first problem - conveyed down Tiger Brennan Drive and other roads in the town at - I recall a government blurb - one truck every one to two minutes during the construction phase of this project. So, high numbers of traffic, road damage, and a lot of soil being transported from the site to the Shoal Bay dump. That contaminated soil contains not only different types of hydrocarbons but there will also be dirt that contains heavy metals which will need to be treated. There are many unknowns.
I ask the Chief Minister, in her response closing debate, that she either lays it out clearly or, if not, when the opposition presents for its briefing from the relevant officer, provides a clear definition of what the costs are, what the environmental reparation costs will be, and how it is projected for the next 15 years because right now, we do not know. I suggest to you the $144m that is now the maximum figure that has been quoted at this moment will probably rise even higher; that the $10m that the Chief Minister interjected with earlier is just the first bit of the cost that will have to be paid to decontaminate the land over the next 15 years.
There are some significant issues in this project. Support it? Yes we do. The information we are requesting needs to be provided clearly so that we can continue to track how this project is progressing over the next 15 years. Without it, it is hard to be clear on how we will report to Territorians on whether this government is doing the right thing or not. At the end of the day, this project belongs to Territorians, not this government.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront development. It is a fantastic project with 1000 jobs in the construction phase, 200 direct jobs in the operational phase of the convention and entertainment centre alone, and many more jobs in flow-on sectors of the economy. In operation, the waterfront will provide a wealth of jobs in the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors.
The waterfront will be a great place for Territorians and visitors alike to relax and enjoy themselves. It will become another element of the Territory’s unique lifestyle and a development of which we can justly be proud. It is reassuring to hear that the opposition has re-examined its opposition to the project and is now supporting it. We were chastised by the member for Greatorex, who said that the government is trying to own the project, yet, after he said that, he claimed that the CLP owned the whole of the Northern Territory and were basically responsible for everything in it.
It is a bit of a double standard, member for Greatorex, to chastise the government which, of course, is of the people by the people for the people, and substitute it with a brand name of a political party, the CLP. I thought it was paradoxical that you did that, member for Greatorex.
The member for Greatorex mentioned the Chief Minister’s so-called endorsement in a newspaper article. I will leave the Chief Minister to sweep up on that one.
He also asked the exact dollar contributions of government to the project. I reiterate the statements by the member for Wanguri that for an investment of somewhere around $150m, we have levered over $1bn of investment into the Northern Territory. That is a fantastic achievement, and something the opposition should be applauding. This is an investment. It is a lever. Here is the member for Greatorex quibbling over the dollar value on today’s dollars and future rates and asking what it all means. The member for Greatorex should see it as a fantastic investment for the Northern Territory.
He also talked about the hydrocarbons. I was in the process of going through the Estimates Committee Hansard. It was spelt out pretty plainly to the member for Greatorex. Basically, his assertion of truck load after truck load of contaminated soil going along Tiger Brennan Drive for 15 years was not true. The truth of the matter is, and I will come to it later, that most of the soil is being dredged and moved over to holding ponds in East Arm Port. There is very little soil that is contaminated.
Let us get one thing straight: the environmental report said that it was not heavily contaminated. In fact, the environmental report, as I recall, said that there was fairly low-level contamination both in hydrocarbons and metals. It is not right for the member for Greatorex to run a scare campaign about contaminated soil. We have been up-front about how that contaminated soil will be disposed of, and it will be disposed of in trenches at the dump with the cooperation of Darwin City Council.
In short, I welcome the fact that the opposition is now supporting this great development. It will be $1.1bn of development activity over the next 10 to 15 years. The development includes a local industry participation plan for each phase, and part of the plan is that a minimum of 85% of construction value will go to local small business and industry.
I would like to give the House a little information about the Local Industry Participation Plan. I have already talked about the target of 85%. It also contains warrantable commitments - this is for companies that are involved with this - in relation to the establishment of an office in Darwin; implementation of an employment and training plan; provision of a cumulative total of 10 scholarships over the period of the development; and undertaking an economic study of the impact of the development. The Local Industry Participation Plan also provides for contract packages to be prepared in consultation with the NT Industry Capability Network to enable local firms with the appropriate capabilities to compete for work. It is too early in the design phase for these consultations to commence with compliance with the Local Industry Participation Plan to be monitored through quarterly reporting by the consortium.
This morning we had the Leader of the Opposition talking about an airconditioning company. She was asserting that this airconditioning company had missed out on contracts to do with the waterfront development. To set the record straight in terms of this: AE Smith, which was the interstate company mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, is the mechanical services designer for the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture on the DCEC and they are based interstate. However, the company that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to, a local company, is a recognised subcontractor. They are a large company in Darwin and the Northern Territory and they are recognised as such. The overall design of the airconditioning facilities in regard to the entertainment centre has always been posited with AE Smith. Now, through the Local Industry Participation Plan, all these jobs will be contracted out, and all airconditioning-type firms in Darwin, local firms, will have an opportunity to tender on that work. That is the simple explanation here.
I have been advised that no one company has been given exclusivity in this work. It has always been on the basis that they are a subcontractor and they will be competing against other local firms for this work. It is a bit of a furphy for the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and make the assertions that she did today because, basically, the Local Industry Participation Plan guarantees 85% of work going to local companies.
There are financial consequences for the consortium if the targets are not met. In addition, the Local Industry Participation Plan contains other commitments that I have mentioned. Macmahon Contractors is the design and construct contractor for the community infrastructure works. Magnetometer investigations have been undertaken to determine occurrence of metal objects in the area to be dredged, including potential unexploded ordnance which, of course, would have been leftovers from World War II. Work involving the removal of these objects will be undertaken prior to the commencement of dredging activities. This is not the first time that possible unexploded ordnance has been dealt with on Northern Territory construction projects; for example, the AustralAsia Railway, and residential and marina developments in Frances Bay have all had to deal with the possible presence of unexploded ordnance.
The dredge floor pond has been constructed within the reclamation area at the Port of Darwin development at East Arm. This pond will retain sediments to be removed for the construction of the sea wall and the convention centre pad within Kitchener Bay. The assembly of the dredge pipeline which will carry sediments from Kitchener Bay to the sediment ponds at East Arm is in progress. Dredging of the foundation for the convention centre pad will be the first construction activity undertaken on-site, but this will require the removal of metal objects, as I said, ahead of dredging. Fill for the construction of the convention centre pad will be transported by road trains to a surge pile on the site of the old Darwin Power Station. The fill material will then be prepared to specification and placed using dump trucks and dozers. Work on this component is anticipated to be completed by mid-November 2005.
On completion of the convention centre pad, construction will proceed on the sea wall with completion targeted for mid-July 2006. Headworks to the boundary of the site are to be undertaken by separate contract. Documentation is currently being prepared for this work to be completed by June 2006.
Demolition of the old Fort Hill Wharf is currently in progress and is required to be completed to enable the construction of the western end of the sea wall. Demolition of the old power station fuel tanks within Stokes Hill, and a redundant water tank on the rim of Stokes Hill, is now complete allowing remediation of the site to proceed. Demolition of the boom shed is proceeding and is due for completion by next month. The remaining Darwin Port Corporation buildings will be demolished at the residential developer’s cost when this area is required in the future. Removal of the remnants of the ore stockpile areas adjacent to Fort Hill, and the demolition of the iron ore ship loader, will be undertaken as a Northern Territory government obligation when the area is required for future residential development.
Environmental management is important with any project. It is especially important with a project of this size and with its proximity to the Darwin Harbour. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure commissioned URS to prepare an environment impact statement for the project. This work was completed at a cost of $1.9m. GHD is providing environmental auditing services, particularly with respect to remediation of the site and the site management plan, at a cost of $0.2m. The role of the independent environmental auditor is to ensure that any remediation that is necessary meets the standards equivalent to those of the Victorian Environmental Protection Agency which, I believe, is a very positive aspect. There is an independent environmental auditor who will look at the environmental aspect of this development and make sure that it all comes up to standard.
The EIS revealed relatively low levels of contamination across the waterfront site. I will say that again for the benefit of the member for Greatorex: the EIS revealed relatively low levels of contamination across the waterfront site. The draft environmental assessments, including geotechnical and contamination investigations, were provided to the three short-listed consortia for consideration in the preparation of their respective proposals.
A remedial action plan, RAP, was endorsed on 26 July 2005 by the independent environmental auditor. The auditor will issue a statement of environmental audit which will include a statement of suitable land uses following the prescribed remediation.
The developer proposes to carry out extensive dredging and marine works commencing this month. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has carried out ecological risk assessment for dredging operations, and the dredge management plan has subsequently been approved. The developer has prepared an overall environmental management framework, and this was approved by the OEH on 25 July 2005. A draft construction environmental management plan has been prepared in accordance with the already established environmental and management requirements. This document is currently under review through the Development Consent Authority’s approval process.
I now turn to the elements of the development consent process. Contrary to some of the assertions made by the opposition prior to the last election, this whole project has been through a very transparent public process, the normal consent processes. The public has been involved and people have been able to comment. It has all been very public, contrary to assertions by the opposition that, somehow, this whole process is being hurried unduly, and processes are being shortcut. I will now outline the processes under the DCA just to illustrate the considerable involvement through the consent process.
The DCA considered the marine infrastructure and community infrastructure applications at a meeting on 23 February 2005, and granted conditional consent to those applications. Consideration of the Darwin convention and exhibition centre application was deferred at the applicant’s request pending architectural amendments. A supplementary package has now been provided. This was considered by the DCA on 3 August 2005. The mixed use residential/commercial application is the fourth development application lodged by the developer, and was placed on public exhibition from 4 March to 18 March 2005. The application was scheduled to be heard at the meeting on 6 April. However, government temporarily withdrew authorisation pending financial negations which have now been concluded. A new application for this component of Stage 1 was lodged on 27 June 2005, and was considered by the DCA on 3 August 2005.
The mixed use service apartment/hostel commercial application was re-lodged on 30 May 2005, with public exhibition during June. The application was considered at the DCA hearing on 6 July 2005. It was resolved to delegate the determination of the application to the chairman and one member, subject to the submission of amended plans that address the height issue and bring it in line with the Darwin City Waterfront Land Use Concept Plan.
A development application seeking consent to develop a lock in the sea wall was lodged by the proponents on 29 July 2005. This will allow its consideration at the DCA meeting on 7 December 2005.
An application was lodged by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment to subdivide and consolidate a range of parcels in the Darwin City Waterfront area to facilitate the issue of a Crown lease term to the Darwin Cove Consortium for the redevelopment. The application was considered and approved by the DCA on 4 May 2005. The development permit was signed on 17 May 2005; exclusion of the sacred site from this parcel was lodged on 24 May 2005; and a variation to the development permit was signed on 10 June 2005.
So, there you have it: very extensive public processes through the consent authority. Everything has been done according to law and process. The statutory time frames have been observed and proper process has been followed.
I commend the DCA and the proponents for going through these rigorous processes. It all means a better development for the people of the Northern Territory.
Before I close, I would just like to touch on an issue raised by the member for Nelson. He said it would have been better if the public could have seen the three plans that were put up by the three different consortia which were short listed for the project. At one level, I can understand what the member for Nelson is talking about. He is arguing that the public is putting up the money for this and the public should have a fair say in deciding. But, in the world of commerce, and this is fairly high commerce, those rules cannot really apply because many of the submissions are commercial-in-confidence and there is a probity process to be followed.
We saw when the Darwin City Council got involved with the Darwin Dental Clinic process and started picking their favourites, their best proposal, the whole probity process was undermined. I received advice from the probity auditor that that process should be abandoned, and that is what happened. No one was really happy about that.
I say to the member for Nelson, yes, I understand what you mean but, really, in these very large projects there is a process; there are assessments made according to a number of agreed criteria. Those assessments are made by independent experts, and then recommendations come to government and government makes decisions. Basically, we know in these projects how one side will try to lever the public against another side, and it is just not appropriate. The Darwin Dental Clinic was one example where the public, the council, got involved and, basically, the whole process was subverted.
I will finish by adding my congratulations to all those involved, from the private sector and the public sector, including the unsuccessful bidders, in bringing this project to financial close. From the expressions of interest being called in September 2003 to financial close, there was an intense period of work for all involved. This is a $1.1bn project involving complex contractual agreements and financing. I would like to thank the Department of the Chief Minister and Mr Paul Tyrrell, and those in the team who supported him in the negotiations; the Office of Environment and Heritage for all the hard work that they have done in terms of the environmental assessments; the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and, of course, the ones who hold the money, the Northern Territory Treasury, being involved in this at a very important level.
I commend this project to the House. It is a great project for the Northern Territory; it is a great project for Darwin. It is going to shore up our tourism industry over the next 10 to 20 years. It is going to make Darwin an even more desirable destination. It will be a great asset to this city, to the Northern Territory and to the region. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront development to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I, too, commend the Chief Minister for bringing the statement to the House. The waterfront project is going to be fantastic for Darwin and the Territory for so many reasons. There are long-term benefits for both business and tourism. It is a great new facility for the public, and the jobs that come with construction and operation will be very welcome.
The waterfront development adds a dimension to the tourism industry in Darwin. The convention centre will attract the corporate tourist, which is a component of the tourism industry that we have been missing out on to date. They are big spending. Attracting conventions will form a big component of extending the shoulder season, something we know is important to the viability of our tourism sector.
The convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs for Territorians by year four of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by year 10. It will create a new population base with an influx of convention visitors and this will increase demand for shopping in our central business district. A lovely aspect of the waterfront development will be the Avenue of Honour which links the convention centre and hotel precinct with the central business district and mall. The Avenue of Honour will provide pedestrian access in a sheltered environment and will be a spectacular link between the mall and the convention centre and waterfront.
The new cruise ship terminal that is being constructed as part of this project will increase the number of big spending tourists coming to the CBD from those wonderful cruise ships we have increasingly seen stopping in Darwin.
The new facility for the public will be great for business, but it also helps everyone in Darwin because it is very much a public facility; 40% of the project is dedicated to public open space. There will be parks, gardens and a children’s playground. There is an open-air amphitheatre, a boardwalk and a promenade, plenty of cafs and bars. However, for some people it will be the water activities that are the most exciting, with a swimming area and wave pool.
As the member for Karama and being involved in the redevelopment at Leanyer Recreation Park, I know just how successful a water park can be in improving the lifestyle of our community. I am sure that the wave pool will be just as popular, if not more popular, than the facility that this government has already delivered.
The opposition distributed a flyer within the NT News calling the wave pool a gimmick. Sure, a wave pool is great fun, but providing our youth with things they really enjoy doing - activity and recreation - is no gimmick; it is extremely important.
In relation to the construction aspects of this exciting project, there are many subcontractors who live in my electorate of Karama. I know that this construction project is incredibly good news for them. There is a wide range of skilled workers to be employed including project and site managers, foremen and supervisors, carpenters, bricklayers, scaffolders, concreters, steel and plaster fixers, painters and electricians; 1000 construction jobs are anticipated with 85% of them going to locals. I congratulate the government for ensuring the 85% local participation provision.
I have certainly seen the boom period that the Territory has been going through in the jobs that subcontractors are picking up, and it is having a real impact on the look of my electorate. The subbies are pretty flush with money and are turning that around into renovating their homes. We are getting some lovely home extensions happening right throughout my electorate in the suburbs of Karama and Malak at the moment. They are subbies making the most of the good times in providing for their families in a very nice way, by investing in home ownership in the Territory.
A fantastic aspect of this waterfront project is the fact it is a public/private partnership. The project is a great example of a public/private partnership. Using private sector investment gets the convention centre constructed and available quickly. Then, after 25 years, it transfers back into full government ownership; a very exciting process. I congratulate the Chief Minister and her departmental staff for being able to provide such a wonderful deal for the Territory public.
The opposition has been all over the place on this issue. At one stage, they said the whole project should be funded by the government. Then, at another time, they suggested that the government contribution had been too high. I guess they were just stuck on their car park idea. With the opposition’s position of scrapping the whole project, they probably did not spend too much time thinking about the financing, and that became very apparent with the shifts and changes and the lines coming from the opposition. We saw more shifts and changes on that subject in debate today.
The project is an icon project for Darwin. It is a beautiful way to showcase our gorgeous harbour. I know many people are looking forward to seeing the many benefits in lifestyle and provision of first-class facilities which will flow from the waterfront project. It is an exciting time to see what had been a rundown area of the wharf precinct come to life. There has been much activity in preparation. I congratulate the many people, as the previous speaker did, who have been at the forefront in planning and designing the remedial work that needs to be done to prepare for this project, and for the really hard work done by officers of departments to bring this project to fruition.
However, it was because the Martin government had a vision of promising and delivering on a convention centre for Darwin. I know there was community debate about location. I have spoken to some business people who were of the view that they would have preferred it to be closer to the mall but, more and more as they see this project coming to fruition, their views are shifting. They see the real benefits and linkages between the waterfront project and the mall. The Avenue of Honour is an appropriate way to provide that linkage, and I congratulate the planners for having a vision of integrating the waterfront precinct into our wonderful growing CBD area.
As Minister for Sport and Recreation, much of my effort and time, obviously, goes into sport, but I do remind people that recreation is an aspect of my responsibilities. This will be a wonderful recreational opportunity for the people of Darwin and, more broadly, the Territory. I know Territorians travel from the regional and remote parts of the Territory into Darwin as a service hub, whether it is for work, study or visiting family, so people from right throughout the Territory will enjoy the benefits of this waterfront. Certainly, those of us who travel interstate from time to time, know the beauty of such projects; for example, the waterfront changes in Melbourne, and seeing how Southbank has reformed and reshaped Brisbane. You are certainly left in no doubt as to the beauty and importance of these projects to our nation’s capital cities.
From what I have seen of the waterfront plans and proposals, this is the project to beat all others. It is certainly fitting that we will create the pearl within our harbour through this waterfront development. I know the Chief Minister has her eye on detail. She has been very proactive in ensuring that this is a transparent and good process to follow in terms of probity. I congratulate her for that. Certainly, previous Chief Ministers did not have such a view when it came to major developments and projects that spent Territorians’ money. I also know the view is to ensure that we have a first rate facility, and that will go down to the finishing detail in the project.
It is a massive project: $150 m of government investment averaging a $1bn project. I congratulate all of those involved in bringing the waterfront vision and dream through to a stage where we are close to seeing it come to fruition in the start of development and construction. This project will add to our economy, it will add to our lifestyle, and it will be a wonderful asset to our great city of Darwin and more broadly to the Northern Territory.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the people of Port Darwin in relation to the Darwin City Waterfront development, Darwin Cove. The Chief Minister has already mentioned that financial close for the project occurred on 9 May 2005. The people of Port Darwin and I are very excited about the commencement of the Darwin City Waterfront project as, I believe, are the majority of Territorians. The feedback I am receiving from constituents is positive and one of anticipation. I will be working closely with residents, the consortium and government to ensure that disruptions are kept to an absolute minimum, and any concerns raised by the people of Port Darwin will be addressed in a timely and thorough manner.
The project will include a sea wall, providing approximately 5 ha of safe swimming areas, being a wave pool and public beaches. There will also be a 141-room apartment hotel, harbour side cafs and restaurants.
In Stage 1, there will be 138 residential units constructed. Residential opportunities have created a buzz with many of the young people I have spoken to in Port Darwin. Several have indicated that they are madly saving their deposits for the pending residential areas. These young people have been attracted to the project due to the fantastic facilities that will make up the basis for this development. The wave pool is certainly a winner, according to the constituents that I have spoken with. Other comments from my more mature constituents have included their approval of the provision of almost 1000 jobs during the construction phase, and the fact that there will be around 40% open public space throughout the development.
People have been impressed with the continuous updates on the government web site in relation to progress and plans. I encourage all Territorians to visit the web site at www.waterfront.nt.gov.au. A tourism drawcard, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre, with 1500 seat capacity and a total of 4000 m2 of exhibition space, will increase tourism by an estimated $190m over 20 years - that is in today’s dollars.
Territorians will reap the benefits from the project with 1000 jobs being created during the construction and an 85% local content component guaranteed in the project contracts. Also, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre alone is expected to create around 160 tourism jobs.
A Port Darwin constituent has asked whether there will be a provision of a free beach at the development. I must report that there will most certainly be a beach being provided free of cost, hence allowing access to all Territorians no matter what their economic situation. However, there is no provision planned for a nude beach at this development. The Darwin waterfront development will be an exceptional area that families, couples, singles, youth and seniors can enjoy. We, quite rightly, claim this is as another reason that Port Darwin is the best place to live. We are very fortunate to have this fantastic development on our doorstep, although I must say that this facility will be used by all people in Darwin and surrounding areas and will be a genuine tourist destination.
Imagine the buzz in the city when there are conferences being catered for 1500-plus people, who will bring their spouses and children. A trip down the Avenue of Honour will take in some of our history, culture and significant reasons that Darwin is Darwin and like nowhere else in the world. They stop to buy from our local traders, and stay to travel on to other fantastic destinations that the Territory has to offer such as Litchfield National Park, Kakadu, Alice Springs, Uluru, Karlwe or Devil’s Marbles, Alice Springs Desert Park, Watarrka or Kings Canyon, Katherine, Nitmiluk and Gregory National Park. The citizens of our southern states would surely have to travel for hours to reach such a comprehensive and exciting destination, which will available on our doorstep for all to enjoy.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to support the statement given by the Chief Minister on the Darwin City Waterfront. When first arriving in Darwin from Adelaide, the one thing that struck my family about this wonderful city was the limited recreational opportunities available in and around the coastal areas or waters. I guess this was reinforced by having, at the time, a 15-year-old son who just loved all beach activities but, more importantly, just loved catching the odd wave on the south coast of South Australia on his boogie board.
What a wonderful vision this project has presented to the people of the Northern Territory. It would not only transform the somewhat unsightly wharf precinct as it presently stands into a foreshore complex of beauty, but it also adds a fantastic dimension to Darwin city that will broaden the attraction for people to move here but, more importantly, stay.
South Australia has recently observed a similar development. The mouth of the Patawalonga Creek at Glenelg has received a stunning transformation into an ongoing world-class development, namely the Holdfast Shores development. The precinct of Glenelg has witnessed substantial expansion which has further enhanced local residents’ lifestyles and provided exciting business and investment opportunities. Like this government, the City of Holdfast Bay also had vision. They wanted to enhance the Glenelg area’s natural beauty by preserving open spaces and character but, in doing so, ensuring the environment is cared for with diligence.
Indigenous trees and plants, for instance, are now giving the parks and surrounds special visual appeal, while regular maintenance and cleaning programs contribute to the inviting texture of the development. The provision of these public areas and attractive landscaping and walkways along the banks and promenades have enhanced the residential apartment buildings and hotels, the marina basins and the restaurants, and small businesses situated within the wonderful entertainment precinct.
It is great to see the plans of the waterfront have incorporated similar ideas to encapsulate the family friendly environments required to attract people to the development. The open space plans, the wave pool, beach volleyball, playgrounds, cafs and restaurants and picnic areas are wonderful entertainment options, pleasurable enticements for families to enjoy. I know for a fact the residents of the city of Holdfast Bay and surrounding suburbs certainly enjoy an enviable lifestyle and Glenelg has the reputation as the most visited metropolitan seaside destination in South Australia.
The Darwin City Waterfront project also has the same capabilities of attraction as the Holdfast Shore Marina complex for the local and interstate market, while adding to Darwin a sophisticated tropical savannah city of national and global influence. The centrepiece of the waterfront, the convention and exhibition centre, will add a dimension to Darwin that it has not been able to cater for in the past. This structure will be an iconic building that all Darwin people will be proud to relate to. It will be enjoyed by them all year round, as well as add an element of pride through association. The seating capacity of 1500 people will provide Darwin with an asset comparable to many other states.
As we all know, business and conference tourism is a high yield segment of the tourism industry, and the attraction of such a facility of this nature will add another dimension to what is already a spirited market Australia-wide. However, the many attractions Darwin and the Territory has to offer will, I am sure, entice a considerable slice of the market to the Top End. It is interesting to note, reported in the latest copy of the convention’s incentive marketing publication, the Darwin convention and exhibition centre has already locked in its first conference. The International Association of Women Police has booked the centre in September 2008, attracting 700 delegates to Darwin for six nights; the first of many, many more to come.
The added attraction of the 4000 m exhibition space, coupled with the close proximity of four and five star hotel accommodation and caf and restaurant trade and the associated leisure and recreation opportunities will all add to a marvellous flavour of vibrance and attractiveness of the complex.
The centre will directly and indirectly create ongoing job and business opportunities via the multiplying effect brought about by the construction and operation of the centre, as well as attract large conventions, concerts and consortiums, thus adding valuable numbers to the already buoyant tourist market. It has been calculated that the increase in tourism spending will be $190m over 20 years, significant dollars for the businesses of the Territory and most certainly exposure to the broader audience.
For me, the most significant feature of the waterfront development will be the flow-on benefits to the people of Darwin. The project will generate strong business for local traders in the construction and fabrication industry in and around my electorate zones of Winnellie and Berrimah. I am sure that with these increased business opportunities now available, new players will be enticed into the market from other places of the country.
It is especially pleasing to note that this government has negotiated with the consortium building the development that a minimum of 85% in construction value for the project will go to local industry, an especially commendable outcome for Territorians. It is not only the construction industry that will benefit from this major building and construction program. Of course, the hospitality and retail sections of the market will receive an added boost to their share of the market, and will obviously lead to a positive outlook for the future of their businesses.
The transformation of the current Wharf Precinct into this proposed exciting and vibrant concept of architectural brilliance will, undoubtedly, add to the already growing economy and growth of Darwin, and have wonderful positive benefits for us, the current residents.
As I previously stated, I have witnessed first-hand the benefits that such a project can bring to a city. One of the most significant benefits will be the increase in property values, thus adding stability and confidence to the already exceptionally well performing real estate market in Darwin. For the past few years, Darwin has seen some very positive growth in the housing market, and this trend will continue in an upward direction, buoyed by the positive acceptance of this project.
This government’s housing incentives, such as the HomeNorth scheme, will also assist people getting into the project’s residential developments planned for Stages 2 and 3.
Darwin is already renowned for its fabulous climate, quality of living and lifestyle benefits. To add a magnificent project such as the Darwin City Waterfront to enhance the benefits we are already lucky enough to enjoy is a wonderful innovation.
I have much pleasure in supporting the Chief Minister’s statement and look forward to catching a wave at the wave pool.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it tires me a little to weigh into the same kind of debate that has been conducted over an extended period of time in relation to the waterfront. To put it simply: this is a very important development. It was on the agenda of former governments and administrations. It is rightfully on the agenda of this government, and progress has been made.
It is the obligation of the opposition, be it ALP or CLP, to ask legitimate questions. The wider community, be they contractors in Winnellie, or environmental groups, or mums and dads with a sense of vision and a desire to be actively involved in decisions made on their behalf, speak either to government or opposition. It is the role of opposition to play their part in what is a project to serve the long-term benefit of all Territorians.
It was sad to hear the Freudian slip made by the member for Wanguri who, in the excitement of fixing the badge of ownership of the Martin Labor government on this fine project, said it will deliver great return to government, which underlies the motivation, sadly, of this project, when most of the debate has centred around who actually owns it, and to establish that as a perception to create the impression that the opposition opposes it and wants it scrapped.
Those debates have occurred. It is on the public record time and time again that the position of opposition is that this project could have been done differently. Rather than go over that again, government needs to accept that the project could have been done differently. It could have been based on different foundations in respect of development of the land in parcels or in one fell swoop, which government has chosen to do, obviously serving the interests of a shorter term gain driven by political opportunity. That is the domain of government. That is the path they chose. The opposition played its part. The electorate made its decision. Chickens may come home to roost on decisions that this government has made.
The fact is that this government has chosen a particular path. We stand in opposition to ask legitimate questions, as we should because we are still being contacted by members of the community who are concerned about aspects of this project. In raising such concerns, please, honourable members opposite, do not be so sensitive as to think that we do not like your great initiative. Have some confidence in your own decisions. If this is the way you have chosen to go, that is the way you are going because you are in government and you are in charge of this.
However, there is the need to raise questions from time to time. We have been contacted by contractors who feel that the rhetoric of this government has not matched the actual outcome with regards to local contractors being involved.
In my mind, there is a connection between the travel rorts, scandal, mismanagement, and an aspect of local contractor involvement. It appears, time and time again, the personality of this government is one of having their hands off the tiller. They are not actually directly involved, it is like a hands-off approach; it all happens around them. It is as if they do not understand that a minister or government, has the opportunity to cross boundaries and ensure that certain policy directions are brought to bear upon decision-making. They are the government and they are administering this whole process on behalf of Territorians, in the best interests of Territorians.
We can have the word games, we can have the arguments, but the fact is, there are contractors out there who believe that more effort could have been made to have them actively involved and, if that kind of leadership had been provided, in the case of three different contractors related to the area of electrical work and airconditioning, more effort could have been made to have them more actively involved.
The assertions of this government with regards to the 10 000 apprenticeships and trainees could have been given additional weight, because you would have involved local operators who could legitimately have been involved and the benefits would have flowed on through these local firms into greater outcomes in apprenticeships and traineeships. Those sorts of things are what we are talking about. Government makes its decision, and if they make the bed, that is the bed they will have to lie in. Decisions have been made. The contractors have observed these decisions and incurred a hurt when rhetoric does not match reality.
With that said, and noting the words of honourable members, this project is supported, albeit from the point of view of opposition, where it is our objective to ensure that Territorians do get a project that benefits them in the long term. There will always remain concerns about the manner in which the land has been divided up, the cost of the project, and the still undetermined cost of the land that has been brought into this deal, and the remaining legitimate concerns - if anyone reflects on this - about the connectivity between this project on the waterfront and the CBD.
Members who are obviously preparing their speeches, particularly the newer members, I am sure, would have been approaching this with an open mind and would have looked at the comments made by members, whatever side of the Chamber they may have been on, and will recognise that the thread running through the opposition’s concerns was quite legitimate; that is, the issue of connectivity. The project that was articulated and described by opposition emphasised that issue of connectivity. This project seems to have a gap and a deficiency in that specific regard, and that is one area that we will remain focused upon.
With those words, the opposition will continue to watch carefully, and endeavour to do the best we can on behalf of Territorians so that, in the long term, our children and their children will see the decisions that have been made on their behalf will, hopefully, sustain way into the future, beyond the life of particular governments who seek, sadly, to draw more attention to themselves and, hopefully, that they can extract as much political capital from their own duty, which they must perform on behalf of Territorians both here and now and into the future.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I speak in reply to the Chief Minister’s statement. I believe this project will be, and is, a great asset for the Northern Territory as a whole, not just Darwin, Palmerston and the surrounding rural areas. It will improve the use of the area it covers and provide economic benefits to the Territory.
Without doubt, the waterfront project will mean more people will spend more time in the immediate area and its surrounds. I have not personally done the mathematics, but I understand that 40% of the development will be open public space. This was important for me because one of the great attractions of Darwin is the amount of open green area maintained as part of our city. Open space is important to ensure that the maximum number of Territorians have access to an important part of our city - the wharf area.
Many people already enjoy Stokes Hill Wharf. It is a well used fishing spot, as well as a well patronised eating and shopping area. There are also a variety of other shops in the area. However, I believe all members can agree that we can make better use of it; much of the area retains an industrial feel. The waterfront will be transformed by this development into an environmental and civic showpiece, of which all Territorians will be proud. Darwin needs a convention centre. Government consulted widely with local business, and this was an item that local business requested. The government delivered for local business.
The wave pool is another of the public use components I am sure will be used by all of the community, and especially enjoyed by our young people. I am not much of a wave slave myself, but understand that many Palmerston and Darwin residents do enjoy a bit of surf. I know that some people look on the arrival of a big storm as a provider of that surf that is not otherwise present. The wave pool may not completely replace windsurfing the waves during one of our big storms during the Wet as an adrenalin rush but, hopefully, it will provide a fun activity for residents of and visitors to Darwin.
The multitude of cafs and restaurants will encourage people to take advantage of our great weather and food. I know Melburnians and Sydneyites like to see their city as meccas of alfresco dining. If only more of them would come to visit Darwin and Palmerston. We all know Mitchell Street and how vibrant that is, but I must also mention the Palmerston Markets of a Friday evening.
Members may not be aware that the Northern Territory government and Palmerston City Council are redeveloping the Palmerston City Centre in partnership. The Palmerston City Council undertook community consultation, and the results of that consultation were incorporated into the design. Work includes a new public library building funded by the council, recreation centre being built by the Northern Territory government, and roadworks also paid for by the Northern Territory government. There will be further redevelopment and, as I understand it, the council hopes that the area will include more alfresco restaurants and cafs. This government will continue to work in conjunction with the Palmerston council to ensure that appropriate development, in consultation with the community, continues to improve the vibrancy and utility of the Palmerston City Centre.
The waterfront’s cafs and restaurants will add a further outlet to our desire to enjoy our environment and weather. To ensure I do not earn the wrath of others of you such as the Chief Minister, Speaker and Government Whip, I should also say the waterfront will be a welcome addition to our other icons of Darwin lifestyle such as the Mindil Beach, Parap, Rapid Creek and Nightcliff Markets.
I have always been aghast at some of the types of development seen in other major waterfront areas. It seems that there was some formula applied that included lots of units and concrete boxes, without much variation. I am confident that this government can meet the challenge not to develop this kind of formulae waterfront vision as seen elsewhere. Territorians and the capital city, Darwin, are different; and Territorians will appreciate a uniquely Territorian project encapsulating Darwin’s unique characteristics and people. It is pertinent to remind honourable members that our harbour is, in fact, bigger than Sydney Harbour.
I have mentioned a number of components that have an economic benefit, but my emphasis in discussion thus far was really in respect of the greater use that the waterfront project will bring.
Let me now turn to some of the economic benefits. Needless to say, the increase in shops, cafs and restaurants will see more Territorians employed in the hospitality industry. As the Chief Minister discussed earlier today, these Territorians will be able to welcome those travellers who have come to share our story. Some will have come back from trips to Kakadu or Litchfield. Others may be resting weary feet after trekking to and from the various tourist destinations within Darwin and its surrounds. I note particularly that many visitors to Darwin have a keen interest in World War II sites and history. Many enjoy visiting the remains of the airbases that protected the Top End from what was then thought to be, and could well have been, invasion from the north. I can see the waterfront being a base from which these visitors launch themselves into discovery of our wonderful part of the world.
The construction phases will provide many jobs for Territorians. A minimum of 85% construction value to local firms will flow through to local jobs. As we have heard the consortium includes considerable local representation such as Sitzler, and Macmahon NT - which was formerly the Henry Walker Eltin Group, an icon member of industry in the Territory. The construction will continue for approximately 15 years, providing a sustainable job market for the medium term. It provides the industry for training our local apprentices.
As honourable members are aware, this government has committed to 10 000 commencements of new apprentices and trainees in the next four years; young Territorians looking to become painters, form workers, mechanics, welders, hospitality workers, chefs, wait staff, and security staff to name but a few. These jobs must be seen in conjunction with the jobs that are available with the expansion of the Alcan mine in Gove and the GEMCO mine on Groote Eylandt. These are not just mining jobs. These expansions require building additional infrastructure. It means more catering staff to feed the mine work force. Trainers in safety will be required if the mine operators are going to meet their obligations, which I have no doubt they will continue to do, under the watchful eye of the union movement and WorkSafe NT. It is just a pity the federal government will not yet match Northern Territory government’s commitment to protect workers’ rights and abandon their industrial relations agenda in preference for more enlightened policy.
Let us not forget also the development of the biodiesel plant. I attended the Resource Industry Forum a little while ago where I first heard about this facility. Another of the presentations was from BOC who are looking to open a helium plant. These two projects are very exciting and add further to the build up of significant business in the Northern Territory.
I commend the government for securing the returns of 10% of gross commercial sales and 12% gross residential sales from Stage 1. The Territory will get a further 10% of gross commercial sales and 18% of gross residential sales from Stage 2. As the Chief Minister has said, these returns compare favourable with equivalent government arrangements elsewhere and Stage 2 compares very well. The government is well served by its experts in the various departments as referred to by the Chief Minister. I look forward to confirmation of this when the Auditor-General makes his report.
I would like to extend special congratulations to Mr Alastair Shields from the Department of Justice whom the Chief Minister thanked. I have known Mr Shields for some time and just wanted to wish him all of the best in married life and hope that he managed to move the door from his driveway!
The waterfront is an exciting project. When it is completely finished we will have a world-class public area that reflects our aspirations and lifestyles. We will be able to enjoy the various facilities for years to come. It will provide jobs for Territorians – both during the building and after it is completed. It will provide a project for our apprentices and trainees to be part of. It will provide a magnificent place for us to welcome visitors from overseas and interstate with whom we can proudly, and with a great backdrop, share our story.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the Chief Minister’s statement on the exciting Darwin City Waterfront project. We have heard many great contributions, and the member for Brennan’s was very good in the way that he looked at the economic benefits that the project is going to bring. We have heard others talk about the probity issues. I would like to concentrate more on the heritage issues of the site.
The Northern Territory is a great place to live and Darwin is the best capital city in Australia in which to raise a family. The waterfront is a chance to build our future with vision and sympathy to the environment and it is something that the Martin government is doing with an eye to looking to the future. I am proud to take part in the process of the waterfront as something that our children and grandchildren and future generations to come will derive benefit from.
Cities are places to live and work in. They are shared by old, young, families, single people, workers, residents and visitors, and this waterfront represents something for all of us who use our city. It is through community ownership that the site of where it is proposed is cherished and will be looked after.
The waterfront is located in the heart of our city. It is an important site in Territory history. It is the first permanent settlement by non-indigenous people in the Territory. It is close to the site where the Overland Telegraph cable came ashore and it represents the beginnings of the city of Darwin. In fact, it was the township of Palmerston.
Close to where the waterfront project will commence are many heritage sites. One of the most significant of those is, of course, Knight’s Folly. John George Knight, who arrived in Melbourne from England in 1852, designed a number of public buildings in the Northern Territory and in Victoria, including Melbourne’s Parliament House, Customs House, and several other commercial buildings. He built what would basically be a mansion in those days around where the waterfront project is going to be. It was the first building in the Territory, and one of the first in Australia, to use concrete as a building material. It is very significant.
As with many other heritage sites in Darwin, over the years we did not hold our built environment too well in the Territory due to environmental factors such as cyclones, fires and white ants. Unfortunately, Knight’s Folly was one of those. It burnt down in 1933, and there was just a core of the building left. That was built on again, but it did not last through the night of Cyclone Tracy visiting Darwin, and it was blown away.
Around that waterfront area was hard industrial land deriving an economic benefit for the people of Darwin and the people of the Territory, but it was a bit of a blight on the eye. All the heritage sites did run into a bit of disrepair. Now, because of this waterfront project, we will see these come to life again and be available to the people of the Territory, Australia and the world to have a look at what took place here over the years of both European and Aboriginal settlement.
When we talk about the heritage there, we must always remember the World War II oil storage tunnels. They were constructed to protect Darwin’s oil supplies from bombardment during World War II. The tunnels extend from the waterfront area and run underneath the city. We heard in the Chief Minister’s statement about the need for us to proceed cautiously and search for unexploded World War II ordnance, and this really adds to the significance of these oil tunnels and what they mean. I am confident that as the waterfront precinct develops, we will see great interpretive signs not only in respect of our non-war years, to such things as Knight’s Folly, but also to the tunnels.
Of course, Goyder’s Camp is there as well. Many things happened in that area. It is fitting that with an eye to the future, the Martin government is also looking to the past to make sure that they have there, for future generations to come, a sense of history.
You can contrast that with the CLP’s approach to heritage. We are getting a convention centre, and we are restoring and holding on to our heritage for generations to come. Their vision for a heritage centre was to bulldoze one of the most tropical hotels outside of Raffles in Singapore. You cannot turn your back on that difference. When you have a look at this government’s vision for the waterfront, and compare it to the CLP government’s vision for the waterfront, I ask members to compare; the plans are there. It is quite easy to compare. Let people make their choices. I will stand on the Martin government’s vision for the waterfront project. I am really pleased to be part of it. I certainly would not be holding my hand up and saying things like: ‘I really prefer that last one with the great spire and the false island and the bridges across to Mandorah’. Talk about Knight’s Folly - I guess that would have been called Burke’s Folly in years to come if that had got up.
Mrs Miller: Just get on with your reply.
Mr KIELY: I will pick up on the member for Katherine’s interjection to just get on with it. We have been hearing interjections about rewriting history. Well, it is about time that you came face-to-face with the true history, and that is what the story is.
We are very fortunate that we now have a government with vision, we have a motivated private sector, we have a motivated public sector, to get behind with a vision to create something for the future for all of us while embracing the past. This is fantastic, and it is something we should get the opposition onside with it. It is just not good enough to say: ‘Oh yes, we support it, but …’. Get on board, get into this fantastic project. It is great, and it is going to be wonderful thing for all of the Territory. It is going to be a wonderful thing for all of Australia. In years to come, it will probably be as big a drawcard as the Melbourne and Brisbane developments of a similar nature.
We would be hard pressed to claim that it will ever be as iconic as the built environment of the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. However, for being this side of the Tropic of Capricorn, I believe it is going to be a fantastic development and we will certainly be the icon of the north. For many years now, I believe we have allowed Cairns to get the jump on us and they have been trying to steal the mantle as the capital of the north. I believe that we will manage that now, and we will certainly be a prime tourist destination for people to the north to come to, as well as our internal tourists who will be falling over themselves to come to Darwin.
There is also another great thing happening in town that I would like to draw into the waterfront development. People may think there is no link but I maintain that there is. At the waterfront development we are going to have the wave pool, great public spaces, 40% of the development there is going to be public spaces. We are going to have all season swimming lagoons, promenades, great cafs – it is going to be fantastic. The majority of the access will be free except for the wave pool. When we use the term ‘free’ it means no entry price. However, I can say to the family person that when you pack up the family and head to somewhere like this, nothing is free. By the time you get there and get around and access the cafs and restaurants and buy a few things here and a few there, you generally can find yourself out of pocket. Just going to the pictures these days you are something like $50 out of pocket before you even know it. It is really quick.
What this government is doing, with the development of Leanyer Recreation Park at the same as with the waterfront project going up, is a wonderful thing for the families of Darwin, Palmerston and the outer areas down to Virginia and even as far as Noonamah. The families will have the choice now. When they want to get out during the build-up, they will be able to go to Leanyer, or they will be able to go, if they want something more formal, into the waterfront development. So, you see, this government is all about offering lifestyle choices to the people of the Northern Territory. It is not about this being the only thing we have to offer. It shows the diversity of views and bringing the whole community in and improving, overall, our lifestyle options and choices for the people of the Territory. That is a huge statement and a great strength of the Martin Labor government.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say that people think of heritage as something in the past. Heritage is the physical and cultural remains of the people and the communities they build. It is fitting that the waterfront redevelopment is taking place in the heart of our city. We are creating history in building a heritage for the future with vision. I commend the Chief Minister and the officers of her department for their vision. I commend the members of government for getting right behind their Chief Minister on this exciting and vibrant project for the whole of the Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate. I made a commitment to bring all appropriate details - of course, there are some commercial-in-confidence details - about taxpayers’ expenditure into the waterfront project into this House. My statement was a long and, at times, complex one. I believe that meets the commitment that I made to brief the parliament about the complex details of what is a very complex project. There is no way you can get away from that. When some members say it is very complex project and ask how to understand the dollars, it is beholden on everyone in this House - and I know that government members have had a briefing - but also important for members opposite to have the briefing as well. I thank everyone for their contribution and I just go through some of the issues that were raised about the waterfront project.
The Opposition Leader started by saying: ‘I have not had a briefing, so I really will only do the best I can so far’. If you go back to estimates, I said very clearly to members of the opposition: ‘A briefing is available; we will organise it. Just ask us’.
Mrs Miller: We have tried to get a briefing but have not been able to get one.
Ms MARTIN: I believe the Deputy Opposition Leader protests a bit too much. If you want that briefing, you could have had it. There was a lot of time between the end of June and now to get that briefing. The first briefing we have been able to lock in to you is 21 September. The last briefing that was offered was a week before these sittings, and we were told that it did not suit the opposition. There are busy people who offer these briefings, and I do not think any member of the opposition or the Independents have taken those opportunities. We will make sure that the briefing is on 21 September. Sadly, many of the comments made about the statement and the details were from a position of not having had the briefing - nor, I suspect, having read any of the public documentations.
There is a whole pack of information that we have put out publicly since May. There are vast details on the web site. I challenge any member of the opposition to say whether they have picked up those details, whether they have actually read the pack of information that is publicly available, and whether they actually went to the web site. I suspect from the silence, no.
There is a lot of information on the public record and it certainly was galling during the election campaign to hear the then Opposition Leader say: ‘There is a waterfront project and all we have seen is a page-and-half of media release’, which certainly was misleading and inaccurate. There is a lot of information, and we were briefing people as soon as they asked. Many of members of the business community have been briefed, the media has been briefed, but the opposition just could not manage to get their times and their enthusiasm for this project together to actually have the briefing.
The Opposition Leader made a fairly short contribution to this debate and spent most of it saying: ‘Look, we support the waterfront project, do not say we do not support the waterfront project’, and then saying, ‘But, but, but’. That was a very distinctive feature of what we heard from all members of the opposition: ‘Look, we support this project, do not say we do not support this project, but ...’ What I found particularly galling from the Opposition Leader - and I would like to quote her on this, it is pretty much the quote I think she said: ‘Don’t expect us to have blind unquestioning faith in this project. We question your ability to actually manage this project. So therefore, while I say we support it, we have all of these buts’.
I say to the Opposition Leader: whose ability to manage this project are you questioning? We have a consortium in place that we have a financial agreement with, and they are building the key components of the waterfront development. Which bit of the project are we managing? If you had had the briefing you would have understood this. If you say: ‘We question your ability to manage the project’, are you questioning the ability of ABN AMRO - maybe they are; Toga to do the developments; Barclay Mowlem; Sitzler - fine Territory companies that are involved in this? The Opposition Leader said: ‘I question your ability to deliver and manage this project’. She might direct that to me here in the Assembly, but she is actually saying that very clearly to the members of the consortium. She is saying it very clearly to Hassells; to Connell Mott McDonald – who have doubled their work force to be able to deal with this project; to MKEA Architects - clearly you question their ability to do this - Rider Hunt; Knight Frank; all the other businesses who are involved in this consortium. It was a throwaway line from the Opposition Leader about us not asking them to have blind unquestioning faith.
Of course, we encourage questions. I have extreme confidence in the capability of the consortium to manage this project, and they have signed up to deliver this for Territorians. Of course, we will be working with them but they are the ones who will be building the community infrastructure, particularly Macmahons. Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem are the joint venturers for the convention and exhibition centre. I have a great deal of faith in them. So does the private sector. The only one who does not is the Opposition Leader. She does not have any faith …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister incorrectly quoted me, deliberately, I suspect. What I said earlier was that the opposition support does not extend to blind unquestioning faith in your government’s ability to manage this project properly. Get it right.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. If you feel you have been misquoted you can come and talk to me about making a personal explanation.
Ms MARTIN: The Opposition Leader has just clarified it. She questions our ability to manage the project.
Ms Carney: Your government’s. You. No one else. You.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order!
Ms MARTIN: The very valid point that this is a consortium made up of significant players around Australia and internationally who are actually doing that; they are building this waterfront development for Territorians. I say to the Opposition Leader, go out and tell ABN AMRO they are incompetent. Go out and tell Toga Group they are incompetent. Go out and tell Barclay Mowlem and Sitzler …
Ms Carney: Why do you say that based on what we said? Are you stupid or are you just being misleading?
Ms MARTIN: That is what you said. So, in a real …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw the personal comments about the Chief Minister.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the fact that the Chief Minister is being stupid, Madam Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is important in a reply to a statement like this that I respond to the words, the directions, the lack of confidence that the opposition is showing in this project. Even though you can sit here and listen to the Opposition Leader saying: ‘We support the waterfront project’, every aspect of what she said following that does not support it. It has this ‘but’ against it. Certainly, when you go back through some of the newspapers, very clearly here – it might not have been under the current Opposition Leader, but certainly under the previous leader, the member for Blain: ‘Scrap Waterfront Call’. That is what the then Opposition Leader stood in here and said very clearly in those early days - scrap it. The CLP had a better plan. A better plan that did not have any residential development. It certainly did not have a convention centre. It did not support a convention centre as part of this, and wanted to have wide open spaces with lots of car parking.
We knew what the CLP had in mind. However, you did not have support for this project when we first put it on public record; you did not have support for what was being proposed here and you did not have support for the convention centre being at the waterfront.
We have long memories on this side of the House. I am pleased that, in a begrudging kind of way, you are actually supporting the waterfront development …
Ms Carney: What is begrudging about it?
Ms MARTIN: It is begrudging because, as other members on this side said, every time members of the opposition mentioned the waterfront, it was ‘but’. ‘We support this project but we question your ability to do this, this and this’.
Ms Carney: Yes, I question you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I am quite properly saying that this is going to be built by a consortium so if you are questioning their ability, go and tell them. Tell them you do not have confidence in what they are doing.
The Opposition Leader, and I quote her on this, raised the issue of the local input into contracts for the waterfront project and said all the design work is carried out interstate, it may have a local shingle – this is not word for word – but the work will be done down south. I think she was particularly referring there to the convention centre. She also said of the mechanical airconditioning and ventilation that the contracts have gone interstate as well. She made these statements. She said that all the work is being done down south - that is, for the design of the convention centre - and that contracts for the airconditioning had gone outside the Territory as well; that a Brisbane firm had been awarded the airconditioning contract for the project and a local Territory company has been financially devastated by this decision. That is what the Opposition Leader said, and I will deal with that because it is not accurate. It is not the truth and, again, the Opposition Leader has her facts wrong.
I want to talk about the Local Industry Participation Plans because they are the key component of what is in the financial agreement that says 85% of work on the waterfront will be local, so that is both goods and services. There are separate Local Industry Participation Plans that apply to the construction of each of community infrastructure, the convention and exhibition centre, hospitality, residential/commercial elements of the project, and the ongoing operational phases of the convention and exhibition centre. They are targeted at 85% of expenditure on goods and services for each element of the project, and financial consequences apply for failure to achieve that 85% target. I suppose in a perfect world, you would say let’s get 100%. That is not realistic, but 85% represents good local content and we are going to make sure that happens.
Each LIPP also contains warrantable commitments in relation to the establishment of an office in Darwin, implementation of an employment and training plan, provision of a cumulative total of 10 scholarships over the period of development, and undertaking an economic study of the impact of the development. That is, the LIPP provides for contract packages to be prepared in consultation with a capability network so that local firms with appropriate capabilities are prepared to compete for work and can compete for work.
Compliance with the LIPP will be monitored through quarterly reporting by the consortium and auditing of local value calculation in accordance with the agreed criteria, and will be undertaken by the NTICN. I wonder whether the Opposition Leader has issues with that. Maybe when she has her briefing on the waterfront, she will understand more fully, but it is 85% over the project. There are different LIPPs for different elements of the project and they are warrantable. There are financial penalties if they are not met.
Let us look at the convention centre. The Opposition Leader said it is all being done down south, that there might be a shingle on a wall somewhere, but all that work is being done down south. I wonder where she gets her information …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I wonder where she gets her information, Madam Speaker. The design documentation for DCEC is a massive project; no doubt about it. It is massive. Local design firms led by Hassall Architects and Connell Wagner engineers are undertaking the bulk of the work locally. One hundred per cent of the engineering design for the marine works is being done in Darwin. That is 100% - it is not DCEC, but 100% of the marine work is being done in Darwin. One hundred per cent of the design engineering work for community infrastructure is being done in Darwin. Fifty per cent of the engineering design work for the Darwin convention and exhibition centre is being done in Darwin. The remaining 50% of that engineering design work is being done in Sydney because the capacity and expertise is not currently available in the Darwin office. Fifty per cent, that is 22 staff of the local Connell Wagner office are working full-time on the waterfront project, 10 new staff have been added directly due to the waterfront project. Fifty per cent of Hassell’s local staff are working on the waterfront project. Hassell’s local office is undertaking about 50% of the total design documentation for the DCEC and the community infrastructure. The remaining 50% is being undertaken by Hassell’s Sydney office, with the responsible designers being in Darwin on a weekly basis. The local office will gradually take up more of the work over time.
It is a great solution, a great outcome for a Territory company, that Territory company can build its capacity to do this work, done in conjunction with offices interstate.
That the Opposition Leader can come in and bag this process without getting the proper facts, without actually asking a question in a briefing about what is the situation, certainly exposes her ignorance, and certainly exposes, again, the fact that too often the Opposition Leader comes in here makes assertions and accusations based on no facts at all or based on suppositions that she has created. That is not the facts. It is simply not the facts that are actually happening when it comes to the community infrastructure and the Darwin convention and exhibition centre.
We also had the Opposition Leader getting herself into quite a state about the mechanical services, the airconditioners …
Ms Carney: Was it hysterical …
Ms MARTIN: Well, wound up and ready to go …
Ms Carney: … given that that is your buzz word for today.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I ask the Opposition Leader whether she had actually asked Airducter whether they were happy that their name be mentioned in here …
Ms Carney: Oh, you patronising thing, you.
Ms MARTIN: I certainly ask the Opposition Leader whether she had actually spoken to them about putting their name onto the public record. It would be interesting to find out what was the case, because I suspect no. I suspect no …
Ms Carney: Oh, do you just?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: … that she had not asked this important Darwin company …
Ms Carney: I suppose journalists are creative.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: … whether it was okay …
Ms Carney: Is that so?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: I ask her.
Ms Carney: Oh, you are too cute by half.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: I am asking the question. You can answer it any time you like in the adjournment debate.
Ms Carney: You can ask me in Question Time tomorrow. Go on, if you have the courage.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! Cease interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Can I put some facts here …
Ms Carney: She is being very provocative, not to mention telling fib after fib.
Ms MARTIN: … Airducter, since the Opposition Leader has put this company’s name into this parliamentary debate, was referred to in the original tender as a preferred subcontractor. The original tender always had AE Smith as the design and construct contractor for the mechanical services and, as I understand, Airducter was aware of this.
AE Smith, which is, I understand, a Brisbane-based firm, is bound by the same local industry participation requirements as the principal consortium members. To date, no subcontracts have been awarded. Design documentation will have advanced in the next six weeks to call tenders for the various subcontracts. At this time, Airducter, as well as other Northern Territory subcontractors and suppliers, will be invited to tender for the works.
So, when the Opposition Leader says - and she might like to quote her exact words, but I have the tenor of them - that ‘mechanical, airconditioning and ventilation contracts have gone interstate as well’, again, the facts are wrong. Design work has gone, as been indicated by the consortium as a possibility all along, but the subcontracts will be let in six weeks’ time and Territory companies will have every opportunity to tender for those, and I hope they are successful. I certainly hope they are successful, because the consortium will be held to that 85% local for goods and services.
The Opposition Leader also said that ‘the Chief Minister has not yet released true value of the project, there are disputes about valuation of land’, implying that the true valuation of the land must be much higher and the Northern Territory taxpayers will be the losers, and raised the issue of whether the land had been rezoned and whether the Valuer-General’s valuation was based on a rezoning for this kind of development. I can confirm that the land we are talking about was zoned CBD back in 1998. There has been no change to that zoning. It is not a zoning for industrial use. It actually has a zoning for CBD usage. That was done when the CLP was in office.
As we have previously talked about, the Australian Valuation Office has provided advice that the land was valued at $26m. The implication in what the Opposition Leader was saying was that that was before it was actually rezoned for this kind of development; therefore, it would be a much higher evaluation. I just clarify that this advice was sought when tenders came in, and was based on a convention centre and associated commercial development of 1200 units. Therefore, the issue that, somehow or other, we are being deceitful and we are not getting an appropriate valuation on the land, is rubbish. That valuation of that land was based on this CBD development - it did include a convention centre and residential developments.
There were two options that we had in developing this land. We could have cut it up, developed it in a piecemeal fashion - and maybe that is what the Opposition Leader would have preferred us to do, so you did not necessarily get a coherent, coordinated development, but you chopped up bits of lands and sold it up as the market could take that kind of development. However, the valuation - let me make it very clear - is based on development of that kind.
I just wonder whether somebody could move an extension of time; if I could have another five minutes or so?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be granted an extension of time to conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you. I just want to make it very clear that, when it comes to the 25 ha of land, as the member for Brennan quite rightly said, 40% of that will be open space and, in fact, only 8 ha is for commercial development. There is a major piece with the convention centre, and 40% open space, so there is only 8 ha that is subject of whether we should have sold off piecemeal or do this overall development. We decided that we would do that overall development to get a coherent development, and it will be a staged over 15 years.
The return on that, in nominal terms over the 15 years of the development, is probably $200m based on our current land and property development. Therefore, we are not just getting a price for the land in the return we get to Territorians; it will be based on the gross sales. It is a property and land price that we then get 18% over the vast percentage of that residential development. It is a great deal. We will get a return to Territory taxpayers far in excess than if we had just sold the land. We could have done it the other way. This way, we get a coherent project, and a convention centre built before we could actually afford to have it because of the public private partnership.
I certainly hope, from the opposition’s point of view, that that has put to rest the questions that they are raising about whether we have value for land or whether we have just given it just away for nothing. No, we have not; the return is an excellent one. On average, you get between 11% and 15% in return on this kind of land. We are getting 18% for the vast majority of the development - and that is of gross sales. It is a terrific return and I congratulate all those involved in reaching financial close.
There was the issue of how much the environmental clean-up would cost. I provided that information in the statement. We have allocated $1m in 2005-06, based on the environmental impact statement that was done and our understanding of what the requirements would be. The statement also said, with an estimated cost of up to $10m over the time of the project. That includes an allowance for UXOs, unexploded ordinance.
I think the Opposition Leader also said that the Darwin City Council had rejected ownership of the wave pool. We never talked to Darwin City Council about running the wave pool. The wave pool has always been a commercial operation and is a very exciting part of the project. What we did talk to the Darwin City Council about was taking over the local government functions of the area. They decided, in their wisdom, not to do this, so we will establish a corporation to perform those local government functions. They will have to undertake them to the satisfaction of all those who live there. We hope that, over time, the Darwin City Council will take over those functions. It makes sense; however, initially they have said they do not want to, so we will do it.
As I have said in the statement, it will have $1m cost initially, and I outlined what the elements of that would be. You have various employees to be part of that and they will have to make sure that water quality and public infrastructures are kept to appropriate standards and we hope that it will be a cost revenue exercise and maybe, over time, the Darwin City Council will take it over. All elements of what they have to manage were identified in my statement.
We have a memorandum of understanding with the council about the interface issues between the waterfront and the municipal boundaries. An important part of that is the Avenue of Honour, but also how the waterfront roads and infrastructure will intersect with what council currently manages. Plans are well under way.
On the Defence issues, we are having very productive discussions and we are hopeful that they will be concluded within a reasonable time frame. They did not impact on the first stage of operations of the waterfront, and we will have a resolution of those issues, I would hope, in the next few months.
The member for Nelson was worried about Shoal Bay and what we dump there. The best and latest estimate for Stage 1 has been that approximately 5000 m of hydrocarbon impacted soil will be either removed from the site to Shoal Bay for treatment or remediated on-site and re-used on the project. A further amount of approximately 5000 m of hydrocarbon impacted soil will be treated in Stage 2. An amount of 4000 m of metal impacted soil will also be removed during Stage 2. I am assuming my figures is right at 4000 m2 not cubic metres. Those are the details and when you come for your briefing we will go through those in more detail.
Mr Wood: It would be cubic metres.
Ms MARTIN: I think it has to be cubic metres. I think my figure is potentially wrong, but the calculations, the costings, and the process is there. That is all being worked through right now. If you read the environmental report, there is nothing that is at the waterfront that is even anywhere near the kind of problems they had to deal with at Homebush Bay in Sydney, for example, which had some really solid contamination. This is not about rocket science environmental management. This is about known things; dealing with unexploded ordnance is what the Territory has done in past years when developing.
In terms of what hydrocarbons there is, with some of the products from the bulk loader over time from the Woodcutter’s mine, that is all known and we can deal with that quite appropriately. The best assessment at this stage is that it will cost $10m over that time. That is a known cost. The actual volume of soil to be removed will be directed by the auditor for contaminated land during the excavation works and we are confident we can deal with it well and effectively.
The member for Nelson also raised issues about today’s dollars over time. They are very complex. I do not back off from that ,but we did have the issue about whether you dealt with the cost over the years of the project or whether, to be able to do a fair comparison, you brought those costs back to today’s dollars. That is what we did. That is why we can say with great confidence the convention centre will cost, in today’s dollars, $150m. That includes - let me get the details of that - capital financing cost, maintenance operational support and incentive-based components. All that is wrapped up in a payment of $12m per year from 2008-09 when the convention centre starts. It is like a home mortgage. We are paying that from the start of the convention centre and it includes all those payments. We did want to have incentives in there so that the convention centre operators would be always looking for greater numbers to come to conventions, greater numbers of conventions; and so there is an incentive-based process. We have always been up-front about that: $12m from 2008-09 when the convention centre is up and running.
There are many complex issues about discount rates, how you arrive at those and, when you come for a briefing, I will have people who are a lot more expert than me about these financial matters to take you through them.
Mr Wood: Just keep it simple.
Ms MARTIN: When the member for Nelson says: ‘Keep it simple,’ the sad fact of the matter is that it is not simple. A public/private partnership is never simple. You have a raft of legal advisers, accounting advisers and probity auditors who are doing the complex work of this, looking at the sharing of risk.
We tried to bring it down to the most manageable numbers, which is why we came back to today’s numbers. However, the whole process of a public/private partnership is not a simple, straightforward one. The hundreds of hours of work that went into reaching financial close were very complex, very detailed and inevitably, a fair portion of it has to stay commercial-in-confidence. That is our public/private partnership policy; the same one that is used around Australia for these kinds of things.
We have been very up-front about the community infrastructure and those costs are certainly clearly articulated: a maximum price of $94.6m. It is a capital works project; we have just outsourced it. Macmahon will be doing it. I went through all the different components of the community infrastructure and was quite clear about that. That is locked into a price.
The convention centre is like getting a home mortgage. You pay it off over time and all those costs are incorporated in the $12m payment per year. We could have waited and done it ourselves, but you could not have had that happen at the same time as the community infrastructure. We would have had a convention centre sitting in the mud.
On balance, we have a great project. The finances are complex, but with $144m maximum of Territory money - probably a lot less - we have levered $850m worth of private sector investment in our economy, which means jobs, jobs, jobs and opportunities. The benefits from this waterfront project will be there for the Territory, for Darwin, for many years to come.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Management of the Daly River
Note Statement – Management of the Daly River
Continued from 18 August 2005.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I support the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage’s statement on the management of the Daly River. I strongly support the protection of the environmental, cultural and economic values of the Daly River and its surrounding catchment.
The Daly Region Community Reference Group has made positive inroads into identifying ways we can protect these values. The Community Reference Group presented its report to government in November 2004 and made 23 specific recommendations. Not all members of the CRG agreed with all of these recommendations but there was a sharing of various views about the best way forward. As the minister mentioned in her statement, it provided an opportunity for a diverse range of individuals to bring their views to the table with a genuine desire to ensure a sustainable future for the Daly.
The minister mentioned the importance of the Daly River to our iconic barramundi and of the river and surrounding wetlands in terms of their environmental value. These ecosystems also provide economic values, and the recreational fishing industry is a case in point. Recreational fishing is an integral part of our unique and envious lifestyle. It is estimated that one in every three Territorians go fishing; in some areas, it is closer to one in every two. Territorians spend $610 each on equipment and activities, or $27m in total. Visitors to the Territory spend an additional $8m. The most recent survey revealed that our recreational anglers spend more than 170 000 hours each year fishing for barramundi on the Daly River. Some of this effort takes place as part of our two world-class fishing tournaments, the Barra Classic and the Barra Nationals, which are held on the river between the Daly River Crossing and MoonBillabong outlet. Hopefully, next year, the member for Johnston and I will attend some of them.
Barramundi are caught, measured and released over the five days of each of these tournaments, which injects tens of thousands of dollars into the local economy. Of some interest, a major Queensland beverage manufacturer offered a barramundi fishing trip and accommodation on the Daly as the first prize for a national competition. This provided national exposure in promoting this competition.
Several fishing lodges along the Daly River support the recreational fishing industry. These businesses also assist river management through my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines’ River Watch program, a community partnership which was initiated on the Daly River. Two businesses have been established as River Watch centres to provide advice to and from the department to river users regarding aquatic environmental issues, and fishing and boating regulations.
In attracting visitors to recreational fishing, the Northern Territory leads the other states. We import about four times the fishing effort from interstate than we export. Fishing tour operators have a role to play in this. There are more than 130 licensed fishing tour operators in the Northern Territory and, in 2004, 27 operated on the Daly River. Approximately 1000 people per year visit the Daly River to fish with these professional operators. A number of fishing tour operators now base their operations on the river. The CRG mentions recreational fishing licences, but our opposition on this is well known.
Aside from the barramundi, there are other fish species which are important for indigenous people, including mullet, stingray, cherabin and turtle. The health of the Daly River and the management of recreational fishing are obviously important to protect these traditional fishing opportunities as well.
The Daly River has been closed to commercial barramundi fishing since 1989, but the river system supports commercial barramundi catches in and around Anson Bay, outside the mouth of the Daly River, and surrounding coastal areas. Commercial catches have increased. Changes in the Daly River will impact upon recreational and commercial fishing catches, so an improved river monitoring system will only benefit these industries.
In its report, the CRG notes the need for investment security, and that ecologically sustainable development requires a predictable management regime. Controls have been imposed on landowners in the Daly Region. These controls primarily affect producers in the Douglas Daly farm areas. Restrictions on native vegetation clearing have impacted on the development of the Stray Creek farms and the earlier farms, which did not have approved permits prior to November 2003.
Those families who have been affected by these restrictions have been involved in the process to date, and they should be commended for this. These same people are already developing their own adaptive management systems for farming enterprises, with $700 000 in support from the National Landcare Program plus in-kind support from Northern Territory government agencies and other organisations through the project steering committee. This project, started early this year, is now well advanced. These people are forward thinkers and their families will be around in the Douglas Daly for generations to come. They are the economic backbone of the region and sound environmental managers whose livelihoods depend on the health of the natural resources of the region. They will be delivered greater certainty through the sustainable development of the region.
Our Territory-wide position to cotton is well known.
While I cannot speak for indigenous people, I believe we should remember that the indigenous people who live in the Daly region are not opposed to development. They also have aspirations for their land. The Stray Creek farms would not exist if it were not for the Wagiman people. There is a future role for indigenous people in farming in the region. It may be through farming their land. This could include working on existing properties to get the skills they need to develop their own land as they wish, similar to the mentoring that takes place through our indigenous pastoral programs. However, it is up to them, and I hope the Aboriginal Reference Group will assist us in understanding and meeting their goals. Given that the Northern Territory pastoral industry is worth in the order of $300m per year, I hope that more indigenous land will be utilised for these purposes and in moving the Territory ahead.
There are 22 pastoral leases plus many farming enterprises in the Daly River catchment, centred around Katherine and the Douglas Daly. I will talk about the Douglas Daly farms as that is where much interest has been focused recently. Between the Douglas and Daly Rivers there are 21 freehold farms and the dominant activity is mixed farming based on cattle production for live export. Other mixed farming enterprises include hay, silage, crop and seed production. The farms range in size from 500 ha to 10 000 ha. Their total area is 100 000 ha, or about 2% of the Daly River catchment. Total irrigation in the Douglas Daly farm area is currently less than 250 ha. In 2002, the farms produced around $10m in cattle and agricultural commodities.
The typical stand-alone family property is at the lower end of this scale. One-quarter of the area of the Douglas Daly farms is cleared, and significant areas of it will never be cleared. As part of these clearing approvals, wildlife corridors have been established to link with the Daly River corridor. The cleared areas are developed with improved pastures, providing a forty-fold increase in production. Across the whole catchment, between 4% and 5% has been cleared, much of it being historical clearing which has regrown.
The minister talked about the Daly Region Community Reference Group’s visit some of these farms. One of the things that came out of that visit was surprise. Yes, that is right; the group’s members were surprised about what the farms looked like against what they heard. The group looked at a range of sites from uncleared blocks at Stray Creek, to recently-cleared land, and fully-productive farming systems with rotational cropping and grazing systems in place with careful water management. They saw sustainable dry-land farming systems, based on perennial grass-based pastures. These pastures contribute organic matter and improve soil structure whilst maintaining cover. What they did not see were large areas of exposed soil or wide-scale erosion. The former AFANT executive officer mentioned that he had been impressed with the landscape, and learned a great deal from the on-site visit. For these reasons, he arranged for the AFANT executive to visit the area, and meet with the landowners and pastoralists themselves.
Of course, these farming activities have had the benefit of 30 years of research and monitoring. New technology has been developed on the Douglas Daly Research Farm. The farm is known for its research into improved sustainable dry-land and irrigated farming systems. In the upper Daly, this expertise is also being used to provide technical support and advice to the Wagiman traditional owners, to assist them to make decisions about their own sustainable pastoral enterprise. This support will continue.
Some members may not be aware of the other roles of the Douglas Daly Research Farm; that it hosts most of its research activities centred on the Daly River, and has an important role as a controlled benchmark area for the surrounding region as well. For the last year, it has provided an operating base, as well as services and equipment, for biodiversity, conservation, water and sustainable agricultural studies by Canberra University, Australian Geographic, CSIRO, and Charles Darwin University. Other Northern Territory government agencies are also based there. Douglas Daly Research Farm, as a multi-user facility, will be a base for the community, and for the future research and monitoring activities for the Daly River that my colleagues spoke about earlier. I see an exciting future for it.
In the future for the Douglas Daly farms, the potential for expansion is widely recognised and accepted. An adaptive management framework will provide an opportunity to consider the best way forward and will provide greater certainty in the medium and longer term. For the period until the end of 2007, any expansion of new mixed farms has been put on hold.
In terms of the future for primary industries in the Daly River catchment, I am pleased to say that the outlook is bright. Price and demand for live export cattle, from which the highest proportion of farming production value is obtained, remains steady. Diversification on existing farms will add production in coming years. Similarly, horticulture production is steadily increasing.
Visitors will continue to visit the Territory and the Daly River to catch the elusive and iconic barramundi. There are significant opportunities across the range of primary industries on indigenous land, and we will continue to work with indigenous people to achieve their aspirations. I believe that all of these things point to primary industries remaining a key contributor to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of the Daly region in the future.
The development of an adaptive management framework is the way forward for the Daly River region, as we recognised that the ‘do nothing’ approach can be as damaging to the region’s interest as making the wrong decisions. I recognise that there has been business failures and mistakes made in the past. However, lessons have been learned from these experiences. An adaptive management approach, with its checks and balances and community involvement in decision-making processes, means that these mistakes will not be of the same scale or frequency. There is tremendous knowledge in the communities of the Daly region, and that knowledge must be utilised.
Therefore, I support an adaptive management framework for the Daly region, and my department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines will be closely involved in this development.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I speak in support of this important statement by minister Scrymgour on the management of the Daly River. The Daly is our most well-known river; it is our darling – pun intended. The Daly has the potential to be our major horticultural region if we get it right. It is our premier recreational barramundi fishing river. It is one of our major tourist destinations. For centuries, it has been the focus of the region’s Aboriginal customary economy. For decades, it has been used for pastoral and, more recently, intensive agriculture. Most importantly, it is an extremely delicate ecosystem which relies on a very particular balance between the inflow of nutrient rich sediments brought on by annual Wet Season rains and the chemical characteristics of the Dry Season limestone enriched groundwater flows. It is this special groundwater which causes these nutrient rich sediments to deposit rapidly.
Of course, we should look at using the natural resources of the Daly for sustainable agriculture but we must get it right, and that needs time and resources. When we talk about sustainability, we are talking about triple bottom-line sustainability. That is it must be economical sustainable, it must be ecologically sustainable, and it must be socially and culturally sustainable. These are complex interlinked issues that we need time to assess and get the foundation for sustainable use of this valuable resource right. That is why this government has rightly renewed the moratorium on land clearing until 2007 and reaffirmed the ban on damming the Daly River and on cotton growing.
Renewal natural resources, by their very nature, are dynamic, as are farming practices. Hence, to ensure that farming along the Daly is sustainable, we need an ongoing management system that is also dynamic; a system that is able to cope with the changing conditions of the Daly River and to cope with the ever-changing horticultural practices.
That is why the Daly River Community Reference Group stress that once a sound plan and sustainable foundation has been established for the future management of the Daly we should implement a process of adaptive management. This will allow management of this valuable natural resource to be finetuned and adjusted in the light of ongoing monitoring processes and operational experiences. It will also mean that our river management will not be reactive as past river management practices throughout Australia have been. Rather, it will be proactive and in line with changing horticultural practices and requirements. It will also be cognisant of the needs of the natural environment, as well as social and cultural expectations.
What is pleasing is that through this whole process there has been a strong commitment to open government for all Territorians, and this government has not succumbed to the pressures from those speculators who want open slather clearing or those apologists for the cotton industry. This process has been transparent and community engagement was paramount.
Furthermore, what this government has set in place for the Daly River will be the benchmark for the exciting Territory-wide Living Rivers program. As the MLA for the rural electorate of Goyder, I welcome this initiative because it will establish river health as a core goal. A healthy river provides maintenance for the full range of ecosystems and ensures that the natural resource and recreational value of our rivers is available for future generations. Surely, that is cause enough to support the government’s proposed management of the Daly River and endorse the Living Rivers program.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement on the management of the Daly River. Firstly, this issue of sustainable management of the Daly River catchment is of particular importance to me and my family. On speaking to this issue it is prudent to relate to our own lives and the lives of the people we know.
The Daly is primarily fed by the Katherine and Flora Rivers. The Katherine River flows from the east and starts in the escarpment of the lower plateau area of the Kakadu National Park and the Nitmiluk National Park. The Flora River starts in the west and is fed from its own catchment area and by the Mathison Creek.
My wife’s family have a 19 km property at the junction of Mathison Creek and Flora River. My young five-year-old daughter revels in pulling in bream, barramundi, turtle and, to a latter degree, sharks. My mother-in-law is also keen to get much sought-after magpie geese from her extended family on the Daly. My wife is also a mad fisherwoman and jumps at the chance to get a line wet in the area. We often visit a site on the Flora River which has a huge spring gushing water out of a cliff at the base of a massive fig tree. This water comes all the way from Mataranka, some 150 km away. This just shows the extent of the catchment of the Daly River.
The Daly River and its catchment is a focus of so much of the lifestyle of the Territory. It brings people together for economic, social and cultural reasons. It is a special place but unique to other parts of the Northern Territory, and that is why we need to get it right - right for our generation and right for future generations. This responsibility will help not only for Territorians but for all Australians. It is our duty and we must get it right.
We have and are studying this river system and this limited knowledge is shaping and educating the direction we need to take. There are stages in learning, they say. In the first stage, you do not know what you do not know. Then you know what you do not know, and then you know what you know. I believe we are in the middle: we have an idea of what we need to know to make the right decisions for the future. In learning, we need to reflect on the past, what our forebears did, and particularly in the Daly region, what they were thinking and what happened.
I would like to quote from an excellent publication on the Daly River. The book is titled The Spirit of the Daly written by Peter Forrest, published by the Daly River Community Development Association in 1994. It is an account of development on the Daly from page 7:
- They thought its lands promised much, and they believed that once settled upon, then white people could hardly fail to prosper
and, in so doing, demonstrate the superiority of the European civilisation in the north. To their dismay, the Daly lands and its
Aboriginal people were not so easily conquered. The incoming settlers failed to establish a yeoman farming community
according to the models of successful farming settlement in southern Australia. Instead, the new farms failed (as much due
to marketing difficulties as to problems of production), and the settlers resigned themselves to a subsistence existence.
The pundits, politicians and public servants were dismayed and repelled by this flagrant example of European failure in the tropics.
They blamed the settlers, and said that they had ‘let the side down’. They imposed unrealistic prescriptions to remedy the
situation. They failed conspicuously to analyse the Daly experience, and to learn from its mistakes. Instead, they filled official
reports with accusatory prose, saying that ‘if only’ the Daly people had lived and worked differently then the Daly could have
been counted as a triumph, not a failure. They conspicuously failed to acknowledge their own roles in any failure.
Although the people of the Daly may not have achieved material success or a ‘conquest of the wilderness’, their experience
is a remarkable chapter in Australian history. Much can be learned from that experience, especially in the modern Northern Territory
where there is still a tendency to assume that the problems confronting northern settlement can be overcome by following models
made first in Europe, then successfully copied in southern Australia.
The story of the Daly proves that ‘it’s different up here’, and it forcibly illustrates that we forget that maxim at our peril.
This highlights that it is difficult to manage and develop new and unique areas of Australia. Promoting, investing in and gathering more and better information is vital to the corporate knowledge of all new and existing uses of the region. We will not make the mistakes of our southern counterparts; we are going to get things right. We are not going to allow the same mistakes to be made that have happened in southern states; mistakes that have cost property owners their livelihoods, and which have forced governments to divert valuable government funds away from health, education and other government programs for the rehabilitation of their rivers.
Henry Lawson wrote a ballad called Slip Sliding. He described the Daly River as either a ‘muddy gutter’ or a ‘second Mississippi’. The Murray-Darling is a very different river from the Daly. Its catchment area, rainfall and water flow are very different, but it is the lessons on uses and agricultural development we can compare and from which we can learn. Holus-bolus development is economically and environmentally bankrupt. It is bad development. We are going to work with the community, with the various industry groups, and with the science as it becomes available and get it right. We will get it right now and guarantee the future for generations of Territorians, and ensure pastoral and horticultural producers a sustainable and productive asset.
We do not want to have the situation we have now in the Murray-Darling where governments are having to buy back thousands of gigalitres with taxpayers’ money and the lives of those who worked in businesses along that river have to be disrupted.
Traditional businesses in the Northern Territory are learning the importance of getting it right and learning from the science. I refer to a recent trip to a field day I attended in August this year at Pigeon Hole Station in the Victoria River region. The project there is called Grazing Strategies for Tomorrow. The pastoralists have quite often been beaten up for their current and past practices. The Pigeon Hole project is the largest grazing trial in Australia. The $5.4m project aims to develop grazing and infrastructure guidelines that improve economic performance whilst maintaining regional condition and minimising impact on the biodiversity. That is what I saw at Pigeon Hole. It was enlightening for me and the 200 or so other participants who attended. These people came from across the Northern Territory and were experienced, knowledgeable practitioners in the pastoral industry.
One outcome was that if you flog out a bit of country in one year, it will not produce for you in subsequent years. If you manage it to a sustainable level each year, it will produce each year for you. Many pastoralists have known this for many years, but now the science and the studies can prove it. Mrs Janet Holmes Court, who owns Pigeon Hole and a lot of country down that way, stated, when referring to the state of Pigeon Hole Station, that it must be in as good a condition or better when her grandchildren or their children own the property. She wanted to look after the land for both economic and environmental reasons, and there were definite synergies in these two aspirations. As another speaker from the Meat and Livestock Association stated, you cannot have productivity without sustainability.
I was particularly taken with one of the project’s principles, and that stated that innovative management systems that are underpinned by sound scientific research and rigorous commercial evaluation will underwrite the future sustainability of the northern pastoral Industry. This statement could also fit so easily with the vision we have for the Daly. If we are moving to get it right in the VRD pastoral industry on purely economic terms, we must be able to get it right on the Daly.
We are going to get this process right in the Daly, and we are going to show the rest of Australia how to do it. I personally hope that we can roll this process, and the government structure, out to other river systems in the Northern Territory. The Victoria River springs to mind, as does the Adelaide River and the Fitzmaurice, all of which are in my electorate. This parliament is custodian of these rivers for future generations. I personally want to be remembered as an elected member who advanced development and protected the integrity of this river system.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. Listening to all members, last week and today, just goes to show what an important place the Daly is and why this government would certainly like to move very cautiously on development and invest substantially in further monitoring and research.
I have heard from members how important the Daly is for our great lifestyle. We heard from the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries that we have some of the best fishing in Australia, and how it holds immense cultural value for indigenous people, how the biodiversity of the wetlands and our unique environmental values of the Daly are of national and international importance. Just as importantly, I have heard how members, quite rightly, talk about the people who live and work in the Daly region, about their aspirations and how the natural resources may be used for future prosperity. Certainly, these views are shared overwhelmingly in the community.
I will pick up on a few issues raised in the debate. Firstly, the member for Katherine, when she spoke last week, suggested that we have acted with unnecessary panic by imposing the moratorium. With the position we have taken, if this is panic then future generations will thank us for it. I have already indicated that the decision to continue the moratorium was not taken lightly by government, and I say it again: these restrictions will not stay any longer than absolutely necessary.
Agriculture already has a presence in the Daly, and it will continue to do so. It is valued for the contribution it makes to our economy. However, only this government will ensure that it operates against the highest environmental standards. As the minister who has carriage of that, I certainly have a commitment to make sure that happens, as did my predecessor, the member for Johnston, and the Chief Minister. There has been total commitment from all ministers who have shown leadership in relation to this.
We need to move very cautiously on development of the Daly. Better research, monitoring and compliance arrangements, which government will put in place, is absolutely necessary before we consider further land clearing. It is the responsible position to take, and it is overwhelmingly supported in the community. I would just like to let you know, member for Katherine, that if the CLP had formed government at the last election we know that the moratorium would have been lifted right now. That was something that was mentioned through the election. Land clearing would be occurring before the research and monitoring systems were in place. After the research and monitoring is in place, some further clearing will, no doubt, occur, but only against strict sustainability principles, and controlled under the toughest land clearing controls in Australia, which we will introduce.
Regarding cotton, this government’s position is clear. It was a position that we reaffirmed during the election: we will not approve cotton. I can tell you that the community is right behind us. No one has been knocking on my door - and I am sure the member for Johnston’s, who had this portfolio previously - saying: ‘You have it wrong, please bring cotton to the Territory’.
In terms of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and Catchment Authority - an issue raised by the member for Nelson - I would like to inform the member that government is moving quickly to establish the committee. However, let me reassure all members that it will include a broad cross-section of community representation. That is very important, and we saw that through all the consultations that have been held.
In getting the right representation from the different groups, the committee will include an independent chair; non-indigenous landowners; indigenous landowners supported by an Aboriginal reference group of traditional owners; representatives from indigenous associations with interests in resource management and economic development in the region; representatives from industry associations, commercial, tourism and recreational interests; and government representatives with expertise in water management, conservation, land use, planning and regional development. Key tasks of the new committee will be to make recommendations to government on the allocation of natural resources and adjustments that may be necessary under the adaptive management framework; oversee implementation of the monitoring and reporting arrangements; and annually review implementation of the regional land and natural resource management plan.
Government will not be immediately taking up the CRG’s recommendations for a catchment management authority. This would take a longer time to legislatively implement than government’s proposed arrangements. This, however, does not mean that the recommendations made by the CRG will be ignored. They stand alone and do not require a catchment management authority to be delivered. Most will be acted upon by government with the advice of the new advisory committee.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of gamba grass. Gamba grass and other weeds are a problem in the Daly, as they are elsewhere …
Mr Wood: We can grow gamba, but we cannot grow cotton. I am not sure of the logic there.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You talked last week and I sat and listened in total silence. All right?
Mr Wood: You promised …
Dr Lim: Touchy, touchy.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You have raised a number of issues. You have asked …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members for Nelson and Greatorex, please allow the minister to complete her statement.
Mr Wood: It goes back to the …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I think that the member for Greatorex had some red jelly beans this morning, because he has been jumpy all day ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you not to rise to the bait.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Wood: It was a pleasant interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am attempting to answer the member for Nelson’s concerns that he raised when he was talking. I am sure he would like to hear the response, if he could.
Gamba grass and other weeds are a problem in the Daly as they are elsewhere across the Top End. The cost and benefits of some improved pasture species do require a closer look and that is why we will be referring this issue to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. Gamba grass currently occupies about 5% of its potential range if left unchecked. It is very important we look at it urgently before the problem gets any bigger. I would also like to make the point that, like any land management activity, our efforts on weeds will only be as good as the resources that we as a community put in. Improving the viability of agricultural enterprise in the Daly is one way to get better investment in weeds management. Speculative, unsustainable, agricultural pursuits will make our weed problems worse. There is a fine balance to be struck.
In terms of the Water Act, the recommendations from the CRG that the role of the control of waters be redefined was mentioned during that debate. The government indicated during the recent election that we will be reviewing all of our environmental laws and specifically redrafting the Water Act. The CRG’s recommendations will be looked at during that review.
Regarding your comments about adaptive management, member for Nelson, I want to clarify our approach on adaptive management. When you spoke, you seemed to be asking why we cannot implement it now and do away with the moratorium. All I can say to you is that the extra research - and this is really important - and the monitoring we will be putting in place is essential to make adaptive management work. Without it, we have no way of picking up whether we are overstretching the natural resources and need to pull back. Adaptive management is more than just moving cautiously forward; it is about having the systems in place to monitor the results of management and the capacity to adjust management decisions in the light of this information. The moratorium will provide time for these systems to be put in place.
On boat licences, which you also raised, the CRG certainly did recommend some form of licensing for boats and fishermen. This is not a recommendation that government will be picking up.
The CRG has done some great work and it has reported to government, and we have released the report for the community to see. It is not necessary to seek public comment on the report; it is the community’s report to government so it is their report. We have looked at it closely and made our response. Of course, there will be further community involvement because this government is putting the community first on the Daly and that is why we will be establishing the Daly River Management Advisory Committee.
To wrap up, I would like to thank all members. It has been a good debate and some of the issues that have come forward will certainly be taken into account as we implement government’s groundbreaking approach to protecting one, and it is only one, of our many great natural assets.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spoken previously in this House about Mr Barry Levarde who is a constituent of mine. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to mention all the things that Barry is involved with. Basically, there are two things that he is involved with. He trains Aboriginal people in remote communities in the use of chainsaws, tree felling and advanced training in problem trees, and trees in confined spaces such as near buildings. I will talk a little more about that. However, he has also been a long time member of VISE, the Volunteers for Isolated Student Education.
Barry retired in 1990. He reckons that retirement means doing what one wants to do, not what one has to do. He has a fairly strong belief that any work available in Aboriginal communities should belong firstly to the community workers, and bringing in an outside contractor takes money out of the community and jobs from people. It is a fairly simple formula that Barry has.
Basically, he goes around various communities and he has trained crews in Nhulunbuy, Warruwi, Milingimbi, Oenpelli, Jabiru, and many outstations including Patonga Homestead, Mudginberri, Patonga Airstrip, Spring Peak and Mamukala.
Barry is very closely involved in that and has been involved in lopping some fairly dangerous trees, particularly a giant mahogany out at Alyangula. This particular tree was declared ‘scary, dangerous and high risk’. Barry worked with what is known as the RMS crew, or the Rehabilitation and Mine Services Crew. The GEMCO management team decided that a high-risk tree needed to be removed and this particular tree in Nuwangur Street should be the first to go. Barry had been on Groote Eylandt for two weeks, taking nine new members of the RMS through their basic Chainsaw Tree-felling and Advanced Tree-felling certificates. The last three days of the course would present no greater challenge to the newly skilled operators and the battle hardened old heads of the mine services team.
I will take up the description by Sean Milfull, who I think works with GEMCO. He said:
- As the RMS Coordinator, I could not have been more impressed with the group for the work they had undertaken. Initially,
I doubted our ability to undertake the task, but was proven well and truly wrong. The house owners stated that they were
most impressed with the safe and professional manner in which the job had been undertaken and never doubted the ability
of the group.
Special thanks go to Barry Levarde for the training over the past two weeks, the more senior members of the Mine Services
team for their mentoring of new staters, and the home owners for their patience while waiting for the job to be done. Now our
backyards have some sun, you may be able to grow some grass for the kids to play on.
Then he went on to say:
- Numerous other trees within Alyangula have been identified as high risk and will be removed over the next few months.
Please remember that these trees are being cut down due to their potential destructive capabilities and risks to persons.
That is one element of what Barry does. I know all those communities that I mentioned before work well with Barry and they respect him. He does a great job.
Now onto Volunteers for Isolated Student Education: as noted, Barry and his wife, Elizabeth are long time members of VISE. It was formed in about 1990 in the Territory and supported by the Tennant Creek Lions Club. VISE provides over 300 volunteer teachers who go to remote properties and communities to assist with student education. VISE has also provided at least three tutors each year to assist at the Northern Territory Rural College. Well known former Headmaster George Murdoch and his wife are currently in residence for the eighth year. Retired people come from all over Australia to offer their skills and support for students, particularly those in isolated regions of the Territory. It is a fantastic scheme.
In an extension to this service, with a funding grant from the Northern Territory government, VISE has organised a trial at the remote Warruwi community on Goulburn Island. Volunteer Harry Price has travelled from his home in Launceston to stay in the community for three months and pass on skills such as welding and carpentry learned over a lifetime. This is not training in the accepted sense, but rather an exchange of knowledge. In return, Harry gets to experience the reality and culture of community life.
Harry reports on his experience:
- Re my assignment by VISE as a Skills Development Officer with the Warruwi Community on Goulburn Island.
As this was a pilot scheme, I believe it was important for me to make observations and make recommendations to assist
with the continuation and expansion of the scheme.
Because this was the first trial, it was hard to prepare without having some sort of precedent to follow. Before arrival, I had
prepared a basic training course and, once on the island, endeavoured to establish a roster system to give everyone interested
a fair go, but I soon discovered that this way was not in keeping with the lifestyle of those involved.
At first I found it difficult to achieve results in the Balanda sense until I realised that it was I that would have to adapt. Learning
to take things as they came, day by day, was a very different learning curve for me and I found I had a lot to learn.
Going fishing when the tide was right, even if that was in the middle of the working day, seemed strange until I realised it was like
me going to do the shopping; someone had to get the dinner.
- In the meantime, I helped out in the community where I could by making benches and shelves, and setting up equipment in the
CDEP workshop and assisting with other projects for the community. I would have liked to have done more, such as setting up
a nursery to grow plants for the community to use, but time would not allow it. In return, I have learned a lot about the community
way of life and made many friends on the island. I was invited to stay and enjoy the local festival time with them.
My main advice to any future volunteers is to accept things as they are, do what you can for the community, and regard any
training you may accomplish as a by-product of being there and making yourself useful. I enjoyed my time on the island,
found the people to be friendly, polite and good natured and I believe that what I did was appreciated.
Harry Price.
I believe that illustrates that Harry certainly made a constructive contributed to Warruwi. My adjournment tonight illustrates my constituent, Mr Barry Levarde, has connections right throughout the Northern Territory, right to the electorate of Arnhem and Alyangula, and over to the electorate of Arafura and the island of Warruwi. The Northern Territory, in a way, is a big place but it is also a small place and it is these connections that make the Territory so special. It means that people can actually get along and do things if they have the right spirit and the right dedication. The volunteers in VISE have that application and desire to try to support and help. I am sure they are very welcome in the communities that they go to. I commend their work to this House.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the most talked about issue in Katherine, and I would no doubt think other regional areas across the Northern Territory, is antisocial behaviour. I will include under that heading, crime and domestic violence as well. The reason I say that it is the most contentious issue is that in the 16 years I have lived in Katherine, antisocial behaviour has not been off the agenda in any shape or form in that time. It has not significantly improved, and that is despite numerous programs being implemented and countless hours put into committees by well meaning and concerned residents.
People who are trying to make a difference come from a wide section of the community and have been a mixture of public servants, business people and concerned citizens. There have been countless ideas put forward, and many long discussions, some of them heated, about what is the best way to reduce antisocial behaviour to make our Katherine community a place where everyone can live in safety, as well as not be exposed to some of the less desirable experiences that unfortunately occur too often.
It is all well and good for some to say we have to have empathy for the disadvantaged, and that we also have to consider the less than satisfactory domestic situation of some of our troublesome offenders. The point missing from all that is there are thousands of Katherine residents who are disadvantaged by a relatively small number of offenders, and those thousands of residents who have chosen to live in Katherine deserve to be treated better. It is grossly unfair.
The Community Harmony strategy that was launched in Katherine was hailed to be the answer to all our problems, albeit that it would take some time to get some of the programs up and running, and we expected that. The Return to Home strategy, for all intents and purposes, was meant to return stranded people to their communities and alleviate the problem in rural centres like Katherine. Well, I can still walk down the street and see the same faces who still cause the same problems so, in essence, that has not resolved the problem.
The Kalano Community Patrol, which I talked about in my adjournment last week, has limited authority. It was to be the support for the police to be able to address antisocial behaviour. Over the years the Kalano Patrol has been operating, they have been criticised many times for their ineffectiveness. Last year, they received funding of around $500 000 to operate, and with extensive training from retired police commander, Maurie Burke, and coordinator, Des Buckerfield, their skills were improved considerably and they were trained to be a supportive role to the police in the community. At their peak, the Kalano Patrol had 13 staff on roster. This was an expensive service, but was encouraged as being supportive to the police, and did have some positive results and was continuing to show positive results.
The biggest problem with the Kalano Patrol is that it has no teeth to really get the job done. There is no authority for patrollers to tip out grog or remove drunks to a safer place, when they are incapable of making any decisions for themselves. If this government is really serious about outcomes, those two things alone will make a huge difference. In spite of the limited authority for the patrol, they were able to move about 13 camps from around Katherine during the last 12 months. That was through talking to the itinerants concerned and explaining to them their options. Some chose to go into available housing, while others chose to go home to their communities.
In this year’s budget, government has cut funding to community patrols and, in Katherine alone, that funding has been cut by half to just over $200 000. This has, naturally, resulted in staff losses and low morale for the patrol. I wonder how this government, which tells us over and over how serious they are about tackling antisocial behaviour, are going to replace this service? Can you please tell me why you would want to do that when there is a well-trained group in Katherine under the supervision of Des Buckerfield, who have taken great pride in their role and who have become very effective, and who would be even more effective if they were given the authority to tip out grog and remove drunks to a safer place? This government said it was going to do something about antisocial behaviour. The two things I have mentioned earlier will go a long way towards helping the police and patrol workers.
It is interesting to note in the last police annual report it was reported there were 19 000 drunks last year across the Northern Territory. Five years ago, there were 11 000 reported drunk cases. My maths tells me clearly that government policy has failed. The Country Liberal Party proposed legislation for habitual drunks in November 2003. This was canned by government in sittings at that time, and then revived by Labor prior to the last election. Government has had two years to bring in their own legislation, but we are happy for them to use the proposed legislation that we first put forward. Just get organised and do it.
While talking about the alcohol aspect of antisocial behaviour, I would like to put on the record again the frustrations of one very committed Aboriginal lady in Katherine, Sheila Millar. I am proud to say we have the same surname, although spelt a little differently, and we are also proud to call each other sisters. Sheila is a trained social worker, skilled in rehabilitating alcoholics. Sheila will not mind me saying that she was a chronic alcoholic for 24 years. When she realised that she could do more for her people by helping her brothers and sisters lead meaningful lives through being sober, she trained at Batchelor College and gained a Diploma of Education in Science in Drug and Alcohol and is a qualified counsellor. Upon gaining that knowledge and wisdom, Sheila set out to give back to her people by helping them. She established a healing place at Dillinya, which is near Delamere, 231 km south of Katherine off the Top Springs Road. The community is on 200 km2 of land, with a community area of 4 ha, and consists of seven fully-furnished houses with essential services of power and water.
Sheila has been so committed to helping her people that, for the first few years, she struggled along with no financial assistance to get Dillinya up and running. When I found out what she was doing at Dillinya, I approached the government through our local member, Mike Reed, to give her some assistance. He and Tim Baldwin agreed to visit Dillinya and inspect the area just to assure themselves of what she was doing out there. For the following 12 months, the Country Liberal Party government funded Dillinya through Anglicare, which freed Sheila to concentrate on what she does so well – working with and helping alcoholics to regain their self-esteem and culture.
It was unfortunate that, when Labor came to government in 2001, they did not recognise the value and success of what Sheila was achieving and cut the funding to Dillinya. Since that time, Sheila has continued her struggle to get the recognition and funding she deserves. She has moved into Katherine to work, and returns to Dillinya at every opportunity to help the people who still live there.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table this reporting document on Dillinya Cultural Healing Camp.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER: I still cannot comprehend why government has not recognised the expertise that Sheila has and the success rate she has achieved. She understands the needs of Aboriginal people – she is one of them. She speaks and understands numerous dialects. It is understandable that she is sick and tired of political discussions and debates that do not include Aboriginal people who can speak for their people.
Sheila has always advocated that what we have in Katherine is just a band aid: a sobering-up shelter and now a rehab centre. We need a sobering-up shelter but then habitual drunks should be sent to a detox unit as they are still intoxicated before being sent to the rehab centre. Most importantly, from a rehab centre they need to have somewhere to go and something to do or else the cycle just starts again. Sheila Millar never stops speaking out trying to help her people but she still is not being listened to.
I encourage this government to take the time to go to Katherine and listen to this woman. She knows what she is talking about. I certainly live in hope that the report that I have tabled tonight will be given serious consideration by government. I would strongly encourage you to talk to her at your earliest convenience and get the evidence of her healing camp for yourself. We all constantly talk about what needs to be done to help our indigenous people in this area and we have someone in Sheila Millar who has all the skills and is desperately trying to help her people with only her resources. Please give her some assistance and encouragement. I will have to continue the rest of this tomorrow night.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a problem that has arisen in my electorate. It is in regards to the noise level emanating from the power station in Alice Springs that has been generated by the jet turbine.
You will recall, at the end of last year, the then Minister for Essential Services, the member for Johnston, was very loud in his praises that we were getting this new jet turbine which will generate so much electricity for Alice Springs; we will have great buffers from now on and we will not have to worry about brown outs and power failures and all that.
I would have thought that when a utility such as Power and Water purchased any equipment, it would have looked at specifications. It would have checked out all the specs and determined how much electricity it can generate, what sort of noise level – I have lost five minutes in one minute - how much noise it generates, how much nuisance it will cause the community.
I think it was in November last year when the generator was installed, and here we are eight months since then and, to date, Power and Water has yet to resolve the consternation and disturbance it has caused through the community. Today on radio, several people rang up to complain about the noise. People cannot put up with that sort of noise forever. Fortunately, it is winter and you shut the house up fairly tightly to try to keep the heat in, so you can, to some degree, block some of the sound out. But come summer - and it is coming along pretty soon - doors and windows will be left open. How are these people going to tolerate this level of noise? It is a jet turbine that is creating this noise and the reckoning of some observers of the noise level is that is in the order of up to 85dB. That is a very loud noise - very loud.
I am told that the jet turbine is used in other countries within residential areas and they do not seem to have caused many problems there. Perhaps it is because those countries which use those turbines have built very adequate sound barriers, dampening mechanisms, to ensure that the sound is not spread all over the community.
The power station sits between the suburbs of Sadadeen and the golf course. The golf course area, particularly Range Crescent and the houses along that crescent, back into the hill that is supposed to shelter the sound that comes from the power station. Sadadeen is an area that is quite exposed to Hidden Valley Power Station. These people have put up with the noise for a long time now, and I am surprised to see that the Power and Water Corporation has just decided to put some noise measuring meters around the place to determine what the problem is.
How long does it take to determine whether this turbine is generating enough noise to disturb the neighbourhood? Neighbours complained. It is not one person in the neighbourhood; several people rang up. One person had just come back from holidays and heard this noise and wondered what the heck it was. She was soon to discover that the noise was coming right through the front door from the power station.
There was a comment made by someone who appears to be pretty cluey about power generation. He spoke about the same type of power generators being already installed at the Brewer Estate some 25 km from Alice Springs. That is the sort of distance you want to put something that creates so much noise. Put it out there. Brewer Estate was created for that and it would have been an ideal situation to put it there than putting it right smack in the middle of town.
If this noise continues - and it sounds like it will - I suggest to the minister that he may want to seriously consider shutting this turbine down for the time being until the consultant arrives from wherever he or she comes from. Shut it down and go back to the old generators for now and at least return the neighbourhood to the quietness that it had before the turbine was commissioned. The other generators are still there. They are all gas powered, so they can get the old machinery up and running one more time to ensure that the power supply is uninterrupted. In the meantime, they can work out what they can do with this turbine.
Maybe they need to look at what was done overseas to ensure that the appropriate buffers or sound dampeners are built around this new generator. All of us in Alice Springs appreciate the continuous supply of electricity that a community of that size should have. We are not saying that we should not have good and reliable generation of power, but not at the expense of people trying to sleep at night. That is the biggest concern: at night when everything is quiet and still and in the middle of winter, especially when the air is quite dense, any noise such as that created by a jet turbine will be transmitted far and wide. That is the major concern.
I will be going out in the night when I return to Alice Springs after the sittings to monitor the sound for myself. It is not good enough that people are forced to put up with this sort of thing. The person I mentioned who I said might be a bit cluey about power generation suggested that this noise would spread at least a mile. If that is the case, it is a fairly long distance in radius.
Minister, I note that you are listening to what I am saying. If you have any information to provide me, I look forward to listening to what you have to say. If not, I ask you to look at this urgently. The people of Sadadeen and the Golf Course Estate would like to have their quiet ambiance back in their homes for the remainder of this winter. The sooner you can fix that up the better.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I mark the life of a great Australian and a true friend of many people in the Northern Territory. Sir Ronald Wilson AC KBE CMG QC LL.M LL.B, died on 15 July in Perth after a long illness. Sir Ronald was a distinguished Australian lawyer, judge and social activist, serving on the High Court of Australia between 1979 and 1989, and as the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission between 1990 and 1997.
Sir Ronald is probably best known as the co-author with Mick Dodson of the Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from the Families, looking into the Stolen Generation published in 1997, which led to the creation of a National Sorry Day and a Walk for Reconciliation across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000 with 400 000 people participating.
The National Inquiry investigated the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families and their communities. Sir Ronald and Mick Dodson visited every state in Australia over a 17-month period and heard testimony from 535 Aboriginal people with 600 more making submissions. Sir Ronald wrote after the completion of the report:
- In chairing the National Inquiry, I had to relate to hundreds of stories of personal devastation, pain and loss. It was a
life-changing experience. An apology begins the healing process. Apology means understanding, a willingness to enter
into the suffering. It implies a commitment to do more.
While I did not know Sir Ronald very well, I met him several times through my connections with the Uniting Church, of which he was a former national President. In 1999, prior to my being a member of parliament, Sir Ronald travelled to Darwin to speak at a forum which I helped organise for the Northern Territory Council of Churches looking at mandatory sentencing for property crime in the Northern Territory. I still remember how he rose to his feet and spoke passionately and convincingly of the injustice of mandatory sentencing both on a legal framework and an ethical one. I know he convinced many people that night that mandatory sentencing was unjust.
Sir Ronald was a short man but, somehow, he seemed a man of great stature when he spoke. I heard him speak several times on the Stolen Generation, both here in Darwin, in Sydney and also in Adelaide. I remember how his simple and honest delivery left many people in his audiences in tears.
He died as he lived - a simple, decent and caring man whose family, in typical Sir Ron-style, refused a state funeral, undoubtedly knowing that he would not have liked the fuss. I would like to read the eulogy delivered by the Reverend Dr Dean Drayton, the President of the Uniting Church of Australia, as I believe it epitomises the life of Sir Ronald well:
- I want to focus on Ron’s involvement in the Uniting Church. Now this was not some esoteric interest of his: he sought to live
out his life as a servant of Jesus Christ as a foundation for all that he did. There are others here who will acknowledge the
result of the way that faith kept pushing him into the many arenas in which he lived his life. He made such a rich contribution
to the life of his family, his state and his nation, in both public and private life.
He grew up a Presbyterian and was Moderator in Western Australia in 1965 at the age of 43. That was the time when the
studies and preparation for union were under way. When union came in 1977, at 55, he was called to be the first
Moderator of the Western Australian Synod for two years. During this time, he was knighted for services to the community.
At 63, he was elected National President Elect, and when 66 installed as the fifth President of the Uniting Church, for the
term 1998 to 1991, the first lay person to hold that office and so far the only Western Australian to do so. He was actively
involved and patron of numerous serving organisations, and received more awards than you can shake a stick at.
I remember seeing him for the first time in a lunchtime queue at an Assembly, a long meandering line of people. Toward the
back was a short man, dressed in a loud Hawaiian shirt and shorts. He stood out. ‘Who is that man?’ I asked. ‘Oh’, someone
said, ‘He is the next President of the Uniting Church’. I was sharing that moment with James Haire, our ninth President this
week and he said, ‘Funny you should say that. When he was President a visiting American dignitary was talking with him as
they lined up together in another long lunch queue. ‘Why are you as President lining up in a queue to get lunch?’, he asked.
‘To get a feed’ said Ron without a second thought. He was quintessentially Australian. Ron had no airs about himself. He was
relaxed and at home in the queue, as he was in his ten year old second-hand government car. One to one he was so easy to talk
with. One had to remind oneself that this man was a Knight of the Realm, a High Court Judge and the President of the Uniting Church.
He served the church with distinction, and we thank God for this man. We are especially proud of his contribution as President
of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Did he know that, at 74, he would make his greatest mark on this nation
as a fearless advocate for the underprivileged and indigenous Australia? Certainly, earlier as president, he has spent a lot of time
visiting Aboriginal people, especially those involved in the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Congress of the Uniting Church. He
stayed with the issue of Aboriginal justice as Deputy Chairperson of the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation 1991 to 1994, but it was
later in 1997 that his many gifts and public services were fused together in the joint task he shared with Mick Dodson in sharing
the inquiry into Aboriginal child removal that resulted in the Bringing Them Home report.
Robert Manne wrote four years ago:
‘No inquiry in recent Australian history appeared to have, at least for the short term, a more overwhelming reception and a more
culturally transforming impact than the one conducted by Sir Ronald Wilson and Mick Dodson into Aboriginal child removal.
The question of Aboriginal child removal moved rapidly from the margin to the centre of Australian self-understanding in
contemporary political debate. The quest for what we have come to call reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
Australians would be determined by the nature of our response to the issue of the Stolen Generation’.
Sadly, Ron quickly discovered what all Aboriginal people know, when the government of the day turned its back on the report.
He copped tremendous and unjust criticism for his role in telling the truth many do not want to hear. There is a deafness, an
averting of the eye, a distancing analysis, a trivialising as political correctness, that wants to deny and forget the results
of the terrible suffering that many Aboriginal families endured. Yet, at the time the report was released, he included himself
in the critique of an Australian society whose attitudes had blindly allowed those acts to occur.
Once more, the faith that had impelled him to take on this task provided him with the way to live through what had then
happened. He staunchly defended the report in his inimitable way, but who knows what he felt in the face of the accusations
levelled against him and the report. He followed his Lord through dark days before the sun began to shine again for him. He
continued an active supporter and participant in the wider church and his Applecross Uniting Church to the very last. Leila, his
wife, shared with me that, lately, he loved to read the paper sitting outside on the verandah in the morning sun.
In a similar way, I believe his dream is that the sun will begin to shine again for our nation when we take seriously what he and
Mick Dodson attempted to tell us, and we put reconciliation back into the centre of our nation’s concern. Of one thing you can be
sure: when the history of the nation is written, Ron will have to be there. He will not be forgotten because God made him a witness
of the deep injustice that is still actively suppressed in the heart of our national life. Until we let the light shine there, we will not do
justice to Aboriginal people or ourselves and the future of the great nation which he loved.
Now, Ron, you continue to walk on with the reconciling One who has the keys to life and death. You are in good company.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, last Saturday I attended the Pesona Indonesia 2005. It was a cultural extravaganza that was held in conjunction with the Darwin Festival.
As this event was also timed to coincide with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of Indonesian independence, an extra special program was developed. With the assistance of funding provided by the government’s Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, the organiser of Pesona Indonesia, the members of Persatuan Indonesia Darwin Incorporated, were able to sponsor several talented performers to come to Darwin to show off the various cultures that are within the Indonesian Archipelago.
Groups that performed at the event included the Meta Bubaya Group from Solo in central Java; Riki Marta, a dance group from East Sumba with their own musicians provided traditional music; Trio Marengko, a talented group from Ambon – Darwin’s sister city; and Pencak Silat Group, a group of seven artists from Melbourne who came to showcase traditional Indonesian martial arts. Adding to this great line up were talented local performers included Jolanda George, a Territory girl who is a beautiful and renowned Indonesian dancer.
I want to thank the Indonesian community and the many members of the Consulate of the Republic of Indonesia who worked so hard to put together this fantastic night of authentic and traditional Indonesian dances, music and food. Unfortunately, I was not very well on the night and was not able to stay very long. However, for the time I was there and from the reports that I have heard, a great time was had by all who attended.
On 15 August, the Indian community celebrated the Indian Independence Day which is celebrated every year on that date. At the stroke of midnight on 15 August 1947, India moved into becoming an independent republic and the President, then the first Prime Minister, of India, Nehru, read out his famous speech proclaiming India’s independence. And I quote Nehru here:
- Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge ... At the stroke of
the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.
That moment ended centuries of British colonial rule. The land was no longer the summer retreat of British sahibs who fancied its spices, shikar, elephants and snakes charmers. Independence was also the end of nearly a century of struggle for freedom, battles, betrayals, and sacrifices. It also created a situation where people now were responsible for themselves. It also created the second biggest republic in the world, the Republic of India. India has now moved from a third world country to an industrial and IT giant with its own space program, its own nuclear program and it is advancing very rapidly to a first world country, a country that a few years ago was a third world country.
Another fantastic and colourful event that I have attended this month was the annual dinner dance of the African-Australian Friendship Association. This association was formed only six years ago to provide support and a socially and cultural base for the growing African community of the Northern Territory. The association has a goal to add an African flavour to the culture of the NT. I can honestly say that this was very much achieved that night with good food, exciting music and some very vibrant and talented dancers.
The Executive Committee of the African-Australian Association of the NT includes the president, Mr Charles Pitia, and Ron Smith, Casmel Taziwa, Mack Mchawala, James Justo, Mille Mogga, Fezile Mphele, and Stanford Jubane. Some of the divisional associations that were presented in the night were the Liberian community, the Somalia and Congolese communities, the African Refugee Communities, the Sudanese community, and the West African Union. The African Association dinner dance took place here in Darwin, and where else? At the Cypriot Hall, as it happens.
Some of the events that will happen this week, and they are significant events: first time for a long time is the Taste of Italy Festival. That will be held at the Italian Sport and Social Club on Saturday, 27 August from 3 pm until 11 pm. There is a great program of music, cooking demonstrations, a spaghetti eating contest and lots of fun and, of course, soccer. Another event is the 9th Barrio Fiesta which will be hosted by the Filipino Club in Darwin at the Filipino Community Hall. My colleagues have attended past Barrio Fiestas and they know that it is a great event. They have fantastic music, great food and there is always San Miguel beer, the favourite beer in Philippines.
I will take the opportunity to speak about a very important person in the electorate in Casuarina and also a very good friend. I would like to acknowledge the dedication and hard work of one specific person, not associated with a multicultural group as such but who has represented and worked for the whole of the Territory with distinction. I refer to Mr Anthony ‘Tony’ Williams, currently the acting sergeant at the Casuarina Police Station which is in my electorate. Tony has been a police officer in the Northern Territory since 1997. He spent the first three-and-a-half years in Katherine Police Station, the next two-and-a-half years in Pine Creek Police Station and the last three years in Casuarina Police Station. He has been in charge of foot patrols for the past 10 months.
Tony Williams is an extraordinary police officer, who is extremely hardworking and likes to get the job done. Since Tony began working in the Casuarina district we have had the opportunity to work together to alleviate problems in my electorate and he has become a good friend. Tony and his patrol officers are frequent visitors to my electorate office. Tony’s excellent leadership qualities and proactive nature are a credit to his profession. His team of foot, bicycle and motorbike officers are one of the main reasons for the decline in antisocial behaviour, itinerant concerns and crime in general in and around the Casuarina area. Tony is highly regarded by his peers. He was recently nominated by one of his peers as a contender for the Australian of the Year and I can see why.
I would like to mention a couple of Tony’s heroic deeds whilst working as a police officer. During Tony’s time in the Pine Creek police station, Senior Constable Chris Bentham and Tony were called out to a motor vehicle accident. The accident involved a car carrying a mother and her three children that had fallen into the Edith River. As soon as Chris and Tony arrived at the scene, they immediately dived into the river and worked furiously to try to find the children which, tragically, they were unable to do. I am sure we all remember that terrible time.
Tony was involved as a volunteer helping at the Bali bombings. Tony happened to be holidaying in Bali when the bombings occurred. He immediately offered his services the next morning at 8 am after the tragedy and was assigned the running of the morgue in Denpasar on his own for three days. He worked non-stop to try to identify approximately 90 bodies that were brought in from photos on passports to give families some closure.
I take this opportunity to thank Tony and all the police officers at the Casuarina Police Station for their dedicated effort and hard work in looking after the Casuarina district. I congratulate Tony and wish him good luck with his nomination for Australian of the Year.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to send my best wishes to a prominent member of our Territory’s Chinese community, a great character, a long-time local and a good friend, Mr Eddie Quong. Eddie is still in Royal Darwin Hospital 10 weeks after suffering a serious car accident. Greta, his wife, who was in the car with him, was over three weeks in both the public and private hospitals and is now recuperating at home waiting for her ‘old man’ to come home and give her cheek once again.
Eddie turned 80 years old last Friday, a significant and auspicious birthday for the Chinese. Although the family were together, I understand that it was a very low-key celebration and that a belated party will be held when he is once again on his feet.
When I first met Eddie a few years back, I was absolutely astounded when he approached me and, in fluent Greek, greeted me and then swore at me. When he was younger, he worked at the building of the Greek Church and the Greek Hall and, of course, working with Greek builders, he learnt to say a few words in Greek - many other words in Greek, too! Eddie’s favourite ditty is:
- Ashes to ashes,
Dust to dust,
If the Greeks don’t get you,
The Chinese must.
Get well soon, Eddie and Greta. Hopefully, we will be celebrating your 81st birthday together with a bigger celebration. I hope I will see you soon, back home.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I congratulate Manunda Terrace Primary School for hosting the annual Monster Auction on 6 August at the Filipino Community Hall.
The auction had more than $16 000 worth of donations from local businesses, with some 160 items up for auction. It was a really enjoyable afternoon. The local families gathered together in the hall. The school had food and drink stalls. Many children were running around enjoying things such as throwing water bombs at various teachers who had their heads poked through holes. It was a really enjoyable afternoon with many activities for the kids.
The auction always starts with a children’s auction. It is really interesting to see the young kids get stuck into vying for a Skateworld voucher and such items. It is an enjoyable fundraiser. I was pleased to donate $250 towards the event, which goes towards the cost of drinks the school can then sell at the event.
In launching the auction, I gave special thanks to Jim Henderson, the auctioneer, who turns up year after year and donates his services. He does a fantastic job. He puts in long hours. It goes from the afternoon into the evening. Jim is a tremendous auctioneer and his services are a huge help and donation to the school.
The auction would not happen at all if it was not for the efforts Deana and Barry Brown. Barry Brown is the school chairperson and he has enormous drive and capacity, love and passion for the school. He is very ably assisted by his wife, Deana, when it comes to the auction. Deana starts off in about February of each year asking businesses for donations. It is through the efforts of Deanna that there are about 160 items donated, some $16 000 in value to the school. Hearty congratulations to Barry and Deana Brown on yet another successful auction.
I also want to congratulate the school principal, Ron Abbott, who gives unstinting support to the school and shows enormous leadership and guidance, not just to the teachers and the staff, but also has a wonderful relationship with the students at the school. Ron celebrated his birthday on 10 August, so I was very happy to give him a bottle of red wine in celebration.
I also congratulate Malak Primary School on a fabulous achievement: their outstanding result in the 2005 Wakakirri Story Dance Festival. Over the last six months, 60 students have been preparing for entry in the 2005 Wakakirri Dance Festival, and the entry featured original story, dance, concepts, costumes and music.
The story presented by the students was Luke’s Way of Looking, and it involved following Luke on a journey through a museum and seeing him make lots of life choices. The school was awarded the top three judges awards: Best School in Public; Teamwork Award; and EcoZone Award. The EcoZone Award was for the most environmentally sound creation of sets, props and costumes. The students had competed against several other schools in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I congratulate the students for their Wakakirri success and to Jo Wrench, their teacher for her great dance and drama leadership in the school. My congratulations also go to other teachers, Ms Rigby, Ms McGrath, Mrs Eerden and the many parents and helpers who got stuck in creating costumes and props. A big congratulations to the Wakakirri team and their overall achievement of second place.
At Malak, we are very lucky to have fine and dedicated teachers who have spent many years working at the school. In recognition of their efforts, the school council decided to nominate them in the National Excellence in Teaching Awards. We are nominating three teachers, Trish Espinoza, Jo Wrench and Kathy Whitfield.
Trish Espinoza is an IT teacher. She offers extension classes and organised entries from Malak School in the Northern Territory ITC competition, which received outstanding results for the school.
Jo Wrench is a creative arts teacher. Some of the events she has organised, as you have heard, is the participation in the Wakakirri story dance competition, but also the Eisteddfod, the Arafura Games opening, Darwin Festival and The Beat. She has conducted a program of beautifying the school assembly area with some fantastic murals from the students.
Kathy Whitfield is an experienced classroom teacher. Her students excel in literacy and numeracy, and she also works with boys in special programs as she recognises that boys have particular education needs.
I am very hopeful that our three teachers will do very well in their nomination for excellence and I look forward to seeing them this coming Friday to help present their nomination certificates at the school.
On another matter, in my role as Minister for Sport and Recreation, tonight I make a tribute to a wonderful Territorian who, tragically, was killed over the weekend, Mr Gary Dhurrkay. Gary Dhurrkay was a former Fremantle and Kangaroos forward in the AFL. He played 51 games for Fremantle between 1995 and 1998, before moving to the Kangaroos for 21 games. He retired in June 2000 to return home to the Northern Territory and commit himself to his cultural beliefs and his community.
Mr Dhurrkay was the first of the Yolngu people to play in the AFL. He was an inspiration to his people, particularly the youth. He first played for the Wanderers Football Club in the Northern Territory Football League and was a member of the 1992-93 premiership team. He also played for the East Fremantle Club in the Western Australian Football League, where he was a member of their 1994 and 1998 premiership winning teams.
Since the beginning of this year, Mr Dhurrkay, who actually wanted to be known by his Aboriginal name Daywarru Dhurrkay, worked in the Department of Health and Community Services as an Aboriginal Mental Health Worker in Nhulunbuy. He was well respected and had a very high standing right across the East Arnhem region. It goes without saying he was a great role model, and his role as a cultural consultant in the team was critical to the work of the whole team. He was very generous in sharing his vast cultural knowledge with the other members of the Mental Health Service, and was also very interested in learning about mental health and was doing a Certificate IV in Mental Health at Batchelor college. He will be very sadly missed by all members of the mental health team in East Arnhem. I am told his colleagues are taking his death very hard.
My thoughts go out to the Yolngu community, they have lost a tremendous young leader. He is a Territorian whom many of us will hold in high esteem forever. My thoughts go to his family and friends at this very sad time.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Athletics Carnival was held on Wednesday, 3 August at the Arafura Stadium, Marrara. The Northern Suburbs Cluster is made up of 14 schools and, therefore, it has been necessary to divide the athletics carnival into two groups since the inception of the cluster format. The Group B schools are the Darwin Adventist School, Marrara Christian School, Holy Family Catholic School, Anula Primary, Karama Primary, Malak Primary and Manunda Terrace Primary School. The schools compete for the Delia Lawrie Shield and the Len Kiely Shield. The Delia Lawrie Shield was presented to the Holy Family Catholic Church and this is based on handicap score, and the Len Kiely Shield was presented to Anula Primary School and is based on the aggregate score. Both the member for Karama and I have been great supporters of the Athletics Carnival over the years and the shields are in perpetuity.
I would like to read out the schools and their scores. First was Anula, for the Len Kiely Aggregate Shield - Anula on 779, Holy Family on 738, Manunda Terrace on 690, Karama on 597, Marrara came in with a whopping 526, and Malak on 325.
For the Delia Lawrie Handicap Shield, Holy Family came in first with 633 points, Anula at 626 points, Manunda Terrace with 584 points were third, Karama 480 points, Marrara 441 points, and Malak at 321 points.
In total, 241 students ranging in age from 10 to 13 participated in 80 track and field events. The coordinator for 2005 was Paulina Motlop from Manunda Terrace Primary School, who was ably supported by the Strong Men, also from Manunda Terrace - colleagues from within the Group B Cluster schools and a band of parent helpers, including her own mother and aunt who had the very important job of recording all the results. The Masters of Ceremonies was confidently handled by Ron Abbott, the Principal of Manunda Terrace Primary School and Russell Legg, Principal of Malak Primary School.
This year, the participants will be considered for selection to the Northern Suburbs Cluster Team to compete at the NT trials. The NT trials are to be held in conjunction with the junior athletics championship on 24 September 2005, and will include teams comprising of primary and secondary-aged students from City, Rivers, Palmerston Rural, Arnhem, Desert Storm and Northern Suburbs clusters. A squad to represent the Northern Territory at the Pacific School Games in Melbourne in November will be selected at the conclusion of the NT trials.
The Cluster Athletics Carnival, in conjunction with the school carnival, is a highlight on the school calendar and many students look forward to being able to represent their school and, in the event of a good performance, may be eligible to move to the next level of the competition and represent their cluster or Territory.
Physical education coordinators of individual schools and the cluster coordinators plan and program closely to enable all children the chance to actively participate, learn and develop new and old skills, and enjoy this part of the physical education healthy learning area.
It was great to be there to hand out the two shields to the well-deserved schools, particularly Anula which is the school that my kids go to - one with which I have very close affiliations, both as the local MLA and parent. I would like to thank Maree Garrigan, the principal; Marisa Boscato and Sue Hyde, the assistant principals, for the work they did in getting their students ready. They went to Marrara and held their own school’s twilight sports carnival, which was a great success. Much of the work was done by Matt Bennett, the physical education teacher. He worked really hard with the kids at the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Carnival, and he was happy to report that the day ran smoothly for all students, teachers and parents involved, and they all seemed to enjoy the day.
The Anula team of 40 students did a fantastic job and came home with the Aggregate Trophy. Over a long day, there was a great sense of team spirit and sportsmanship amongst all of the students. It was great to see them all lined up there, the camaraderie between them all, and to see them all walk away happy and that they tried their best. I was there helping measure out the shot put with some of the parents. Some mighty arms are in amongst those. Young Callum Parker was throwing that shot put a great distance.
I look forward to being there next year and presenting the trophy again. This, by the way, was the third time Anula took out the Len Kiely Trophy, so I might have to look at arranging for some sort of significant trophy that they can keep forever, because this trophy is perpetual and will be handed on to the winners next year. Well done, Anula. Well done to Paulina Motlop for the Northern Suburbs Cluster Group B Athletics Carnival.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016