2009-04-30
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from his Honour the Administrator Message No 7, recommending the Financial Management Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 37) to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House the current status of the review into the Commercial Passenger Vehicle (CPV) industry in the Northern Territory.
The Henderson government has committed to protecting Territory jobs, and building and growing the Territory. It is a role of government to provide policy direction in important public matters and transport policy is one of the most significant areas of community interest.
In late 2007, due to a number of emerging local transport issues, this government decided to undertake a holistic review of the CPV industry. The scope of this review led to Fivenines Consulting being appointed in April 2008 to undertake the review. A fundamental objective of the review and the policy that develops from it will be a reviewed CPV sector which is designed to serve the community and benefit the industry.
There are currently nine different licence classes in the Territory for CPVs, and we are aware that this can create some confusion for the consumer trying to access CPV services, and the operators with respect to which part of the market they are legally allowed to operate in. We are also aware that this can create some tension between competing licence holders. We know there is a need for a clearly articulated government policy and strategy for the CPV industry which can protect the travelling public and at the same time provide a viable and growing CPV supply sector.
Through the development of such a policy we acknowledge that the CPV sector needs to know what are the plans for the provision and supervision of transport in the Territory in future years; what role transport is to play in the broader government agenda; and how issues such as transport integration will be managed. Equally, we understand it is the role of the industry to develop and provide services that meet passenger demand within the policy framework.
Most of us will be aware of the queues at the airport and in the city, meaning long delays for passengers; even in quiet times passengers sometimes have to wait. Disabled and disadvantaged passenger advocates have been vocal in their criticism of the lack of accessibility to public transport. Excessive wait times and missed pick-ups by far constitute the greatest number of complaints to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Over the last six months, expensive consultations were undertaken across all sectors of the CPV industry and across all areas where CPV services are offered. These areas included Darwin, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. All the issues raised during this process were then aggregated and core issues were identified; it was evident that the majority of these core issues were of concern to all stakeholders.
I am pleased to report that Mr Robert Eames from Fivenines Consulting has now completed his review, based on consultations with the CPV industry across the Territory. I am in the process of considering the detail of the review ahead of further consultation with the broader sectors of the industry such as disability advocates and tourism representatives.
A comprehensive summary of the recommendations from the review has now been released to assist the industry in the further consultation process. The next round of consultation will begin next month. I urge all members of the transport industry and relevant community sectors to take this opportunity to have their say on a blueprint to shape the direction of the future of the industry. I also encourage all members, indeed, all Territorians, to engage in this process. I look forward to results which will benefit both consumer and industry operators alike.
Madam Speaker, I table the synopsis for the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling the synopsis of the review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. The minister gave a good explanation about having nine different categories of licences under the commercial passenger vehicle legislation, and the review will provide some certainty to the industry. I am aware that the industry is looking for direction about how it proceeds.
I am also aware that the review which was announced in 2007 has taken some time to get to the position it is now. We have been waiting 18 months for a review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. We all know how hard it is to get a taxi late at night. We know the violence that happens on Mitchell Street, as an example. We know how hard it is to get a cab at all hours of the night. We know that cab drivers are concerned about their safety. Recently - I think it was last weekend - we heard about passengers in a minibus who were attacked. The core of this review should look at how to improve passenger and driver safety.
What is required is certainty for the industry, to ensure the taxi industry is a viable industry and that our taxis and minibuses are on the road, and the hire cars, limousines and buses are fully servicing Territorians’ needs. At the moment, they are not.
It is important is to recognise that after 18 long months of extensive consultations, as the minister put it, we now have a synopsis to consult on. I would have thought we would be in a position to make a decision, but this government is in analysis paralysis where they cannot make a decision about the future. Spending $176 000 for a consultant from Melbourne for 18 months to come up with a synopsis which now has to be consulted on is a joke, especially when the Chief Minister likes to laud his ‘buy local’ campaign. Where is their reality? There are people in the Territory who can do this. It further shows that this government does not support ‘buy local’, it does not support the Territory - it is just in paralysis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. This industry seems to go through phases of reports. I recall the member for Casuarina being involved in a very similar synopsis, you might say, in the government’s attempts to bring in some control or sensibility to the taxi industry. It has been a hot potato for years and years. I wonder why, after a report which was not that long ago, we now have another report on the same industry. Is it because the industry felt that report, having been put into action, was not satisfactory and, therefore, we needed another report to find out whether we could do it a different way? I am not sure.
I am a bit worried that after eight years we have been unable to put to bed some system for taxis, minibuses and hire cars - a system that we do not have to tinker with every few years. You would think once we had a system in place that was working pretty well, we would go with it because this is an issue I have heard debated in parliament, on the radio, and in the newspapers. I hope whatever comes out of this particular report will last for a good number of years. People want a system that will work, that is practical, and the taxi owners, minibus drivers and hire car people are happy with, and which provides a good service, including in the rural area which sometimes gets left out in all of this debate. If anyone knows about the public transport system, they know why I say that because it is difficult at times to even get a taxi to the rural area.
I hope this achieves something practical which will improve the service and which all users and operators will be happy with.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling, the shadow for Transport, and the member for Nelson for their comments. I draw out of that the positive comments and their relationship to this government moving forward and planning for growth. The support for the report is the way to go. The negative comment from the shadow is to be expected.
The time frame is an interesting comment. However, let me say that this is an extensive consultation process that is ongoing. As the Minister for Transport, I am receiving very positive feedback from the industry about the synopsis that has been presented.
The shadow for Transport mentioned security. The report addresses security issues, and, in consultation with the industry, we are talking about increased security measures.
The member for Nelson has raised a very important point - transport in the rural area and in the regional areas or the Northern Territory. I am honoured to say that this is a big part of …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, no one in this House needs reminding of the destructive potential of bushfires. We were all saddened by the devastation suffered by Victorians earlier this year, and I am sure I speak for all Territorians when I say our hearts go out to them.
Our own fire season is upon us in the Territory and this government has been putting in hard work to ensure that Territorians are prepared and are safe. This government, through Bushfires NT, has been running a strong public awareness campaign to make landholders aware of their obligation to help fireproof our regions. The Fire Break Enforcement Program is targeted at landowners in the Katherine and Berrimah fire control regions, which runs from the Litchfield Council in the Darwin rural area to the bush blocks down below Katherine. In this area, conditions are particularly risky for wildfire outbreaks.
We are driving a public awareness campaign that focuses heavily on community education. Under the Bushfires Act, landowners are required to establish fire breaks on their land. We held a well publicised launch of the fire breaks campaign earlier this month to give landowners plenty of time to put their systems in place. Landowners must establish a 4-m fire access trail around their property and reduce their fuel loads. Bushfires NT Council officers are very effective at enforcing the fire break requirements. Affected landowners who do not put their fire breaks in place could face a fine of up to $5000 and will have to pay for a fire break to be installed by Bushfires NT.
Fortunately, the fire break campaign being driven by the government has proven very effective. Last year, 90% of landowners complied and made their fire access trails without intervention from Bushfires NT. Bushfires NT staff and volunteers are the key to the success of this program, and I am pleased to say that they are doing a fantastic job.
This government is also vigilant about bushfire control in Central Australia. We are enforcing 50 km fire protection zones around Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. No one is allowed to set fire to any bush or any other inflammable material within this zone unless they have a permit. We are doing everything possible, as a government, to protect Territorians, their land, and our unique landscape from the fury of bushfires.
We have best practice bushfire prevention and control methods in place and the support of the community to ensure we are fully prepared for the start of the bushfire season.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. Fire is a contentious issue and it has been for a long time, especially in the rural area. Whether to burn or not to burn has always been a source of debate. What we have to come up with, and it is not something new, it has been discussed for many years, is a practical way of dealing with fire.
Fire is part of the environment, part of the way we manage the environment, and although, as the minister said, we need to encourage people to put their 4-m fire breaks in, if you back up to a large block of National Park, government land, even large blocks of private land, a 4-m fire break will do nothing. There are areas which need to be burnt for the protection of some of those smaller properties. The government also has a responsibility to ensure its land is up to the standard they are asking private people to comply with. This is an area the government needs to look at.
There are environmental issues of too much burning, as against too little burning. There is a move now to burn late, at the beginning of the Wet Season, when many plants are not actually adapted to those sorts of fires. There is much debate about whether that is the right way to go.
It is strange we have the Bushfires Council and the NT Fire Service volunteers; in my area, we have the NT Fire Service volunteers, who are doing a similar job to the Bushfires people. In some of the areas of my electorate, the Bushfire Council people have to drive through the Northern Territory Fire Service area to get to the area they control. Somewhere along the line we need to look at rationalising these two fire services and make sure we do not duplicate services, and the areas they control are practical. Maybe one day we will join them together.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I also thank the minister. I had a briefing recently in Katherine from the NT Bushfire Council and it was pleasing to hear that a number of issues have been tackled by this government. In fact, the Bushfire Council praised the former member for Karama, and the current minister, for going through with additional funding which was used to replace older radios, two-way communications and so forth. It was a really valuable contribution and, as I said, they are very grateful for the money that has come through.
There is much being said about these 4-m fire breaks. Most people understand that is 4 m either side which is 8 m, which is a good break. There is also much talk about a chequered approach to burning within the Northern Territory, whether that is a successful way of moving into the future. As the member for Nelson pointed out, sometimes we could be accused of over-burning in certain areas.
Earlier this year I travelled to Melbourne and also visited the Kinglake area - I put on the record now that it was a privately funded trip, before anyone tries to jump on it. To see the devastation of that area because of a situation borne not only from our inability to manage the resources in these bushfire prone areas, where legislation made people build houses and have trees right up to houses with no clearing whatsoever, but also because of the weather patterns at the time was absolutely unbelievable. I saw firsthand the devastation fire causes and became aware of the ongoing problems they have with water and with run-off into the catchment areas. They have had some tragic things happening down there, and I hope it can be managed well.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both the member for Brennan and the member for Nelson for their comments. I thank the NT Bushfires Council and all our volunteers in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory government for putting together this education campaign to alert Territorians to the dangers of fire and how we can keep our properties and our families safe.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, earlier this month the Commonwealth unveiled a proposal to position Australia as a global leader in broadband. This proposal includes establishing a company to invest up to $43bn over eight years to build and operate a national broadband network. The network will connect 90% of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with fibre optic broadband with speeds of up to 100 megabytes per second - 100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses.
All other premises will be connected with the Next Generation wireless and satellite technologies, delivering broadband speeds of 12 megabytes per second. Despite a clumsy misinformation campaign by the opposition, doing the bidding of their Canberra Liberal masters, the Northern Territory has not, and will not, be left off the single largest nation building infrastructure project in Australian history.
Last Friday I met with Senator Stephen Conroy, the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I took the opportunity to impress upon Senator Conroy the importance of broadband to Territorians, and to seek his assurances we would be covered by the national broadband network. Senator Conroy confirmed that while the detail of which communities will be covered by fibre, wireless or satellite technology has not been finalised, all Australian premises will have a significantly improved service to what is currently available. In other words, all Territorians will benefit from enhanced broadband services under the national broadband network.
The Northern Territory government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to improving access to broadband in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. The Broadbanding the Top End project, which is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council, will deliver high speed broadband to 10 communities across Arnhem Land. Some 800 km of optic fibre has been laid and is operational at Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ramingining, Marparu, Gapuwiyak, Yirrkala, and Nhulunbuy.
With the onset of the Dry Season, work crews will soon be completing the high power radio mix for Minjilang, Milingimbi, Warruwi and Galiwinku. Health clinics, schools and police stations along the Arnhem fibre route have already sought to upgrade the capacity of their lines so they can take advantage of the access to high speed broadband. Residents are now able to use high speed broadband at the same cost and service levels as people enjoy in Alice Springs and Darwin. So far there have been an additional 130 new residential broadband users in Nhulunbuy alone, with a further 50 new subscribers in the mainland communities. In addition, there have been nearly 20 new business users subscribe along the link to date.
Access to broadband will complement this government’s Closing the Gap initiatives to address Indigenous disadvantage of better service delivery across a range of areas including health, education and business.
My meeting with Senator Conroy in Melbourne last week was the most recent in a series of discussions which I and the Department of Business and Employment have had with the Commonwealth. High on that agenda is the federal government’s commitment to invest $250m to provide backbone optic fibre links to areas like the Northern Territory which do not currently have a competitive fibre link.
I will continue to lobby the Australian government for the best possible outcomes for all Territorians. I will keep the Assembly informed of the progress as it occurs.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. One of the best things he said is that he will continue to lobby the government if that is what is needed.
The government has put out a plan without any content in it, and is going to miss many of our Territory people. It is true that the Territory will get some of the benefits of broadband. However, it is disgusting to think that towns of less than 1000 will miss out, which means if you live in Adelaide River you are likely to miss out; Ti Tree, Ali Curung, Papunya, the list goes on - Mataranka, for instance. These places have the fibre optic running through their main streets in some circumstances; how is it likely from the government’s so-called plan, they will miss out? They have initially set very few standards, but one of those standards is it will be townships of less than 1000. It is not going to be acceptable. I hope you put pressure on your Labor mates because they need pressure put on them.
The plan is flawed. It is hollow. It is nothing but a way to wash money and to think they put so much effort into getting the plan forward, to chop it up and say: ‘No, we will run it ourselves’, and put many more billions of dollars down the tube without a plan.
Consider that the Territory still has the least amount of mobile phone coverage on its national highway. Anyone who looks at our mobile phone coverage on our national highways sees once it hits the Territory, it goes hollow. It needs to be addressed, so take it up to your mates. Tell them it is not good enough and we need better coverage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will not raise the issue of mobile phones, member for Stuart.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report but, from my point of view, I want to have some direct answers to questions. People in my part of the world, the Litchfield Shire, still cannot get simple ADSL - there are people in McMinns, there are people in Howard River Park. Well, if you can call Howard River Park a town, then they probably have no hope because there are probably fewer than 1000 people there. Litchfield Shire has 17 000 people so I am interested to know whether this will help those people who live quite close to a major region and cannot get ADSL at the moment. Will it change it? Those people have tried and tried; they have lobbied Telstra time and time again, and the answer is that it is a long way off before they will get ADSL. I am honing this down into specific areas because those people want to know if this will change their ability to get onto high speed broadband.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their comments. Member for Drysdale, your comments are not surprising in the least. We are actually delivering on some of the commitments to high speed broadband, such as the East Arnhem fibre optic links; unlike your colleague, Senator Scullion, in his unmet commitment to date.
Member for Nelson, one of the big issues we face in the Northern Territory is competition. Access to a second fibre optic link through the backbone of the Northern Territory will certainly assist with some of the issues you have raised for your constituents. We need competition; we need a second line so people have choice and prices and coverage are met, as well. We, as a Labor government, have been lobbying for broadband infrastructure since 2005, particularly a competitive backhaul network throughout the Northern Territory. It is interesting that our lobbying fell on deaf ears when the Liberals were in power, so it is quite cute for the member for Drysdale to banter away here.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to lobby our mates in Canberra and get the best deal for all Territorians.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Bill will amend the Radiographers Act and the, as yet not commenced, Radiation Protection Act, to allow for the continued professional registration of radiographers in the Northern Territory. The Radiation Protection Act calls for the repeal of the Radiographers Act, a provision that has been resisted consistently by radiographers across the Northern Territory. During a meeting between radiographers and the former minister for Health in 2006, it was agreed to identify options for retaining the professional registration requirements for radiographers. The amendment bill is a result of that consultation.
Since the drafting of the Radiation Protection Act, most other jurisdictions have endorsed the findings of the Vocational Education, Employment and Training Committee which recommended medical radiation technologists, a group which include radiographers, be registered in all jurisdictions to advance mutual recognition arrangements. The changes to the Radiographers Act and the Radiation Protection Act achieves that, and brings the mode of operation in the Northern Territory in line with that of most other Australian jurisdictions.
Radiographers across Australia are lobbying strongly for national registration, and believe they now satisfy all criteria for this to take place. Retaining registration radiographers in the Northern Territory will ensure a smooth transition towards national registration.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Bill 2009 to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
This is quite a usual procedural motion around Estimates Committee. It is the same motion that has been put, more or less, since the Estimates Committee has been formed, and I commend it to members.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, of course, we will be supporting this motion. The Estimates Committee has become the vehicle by which we trawl through the government’s budget and determine whether or not it is a useful vehicle by which to advance and prosper the Northern Territory.
However, yet again, it goes without saying that the Estimates Committee is not what it could be. The Estimates Committee, of course, binds ministers to, essentially, six hours each, which means that some ministers with carriage of large portfolio areas can hide behind the cover of non-exhaustive questioning. Whereas, in the system which existed before during the budget process, the estimates process was carried out in this House, not in a room upstairs, and all ministers were asked questions to the exhaustion of questions to be put to them.
The arrangements that currently exist is that the same time will be allotted to a junior minister with one or two portfolios as it will be to a senior minister, or even the Chief Minister, and it is a disproportionate representation of the amounts of money that have been spent. If you were to consider the Health budget, for argument’s sake, within the context of the estimates process, which will now consume more than a quarter, I would guess, of what the budget will be, then, seriously, the Health budget deserves 10 or 11 hours worth of scrutiny - that is one particular model.
The truth of the matter is, the estimates process could be improved, should be improved, and I ask the government at some point in the near future to revisit, particularly the issue of those timings, but also the possibility of asking questions of the ministers to exhaustion, so that there are no questions left over at the end of the estimates process; there are no unanswered questions when we come back into this place and pass a budget which will authorise the expenditure or the drawing down of probably close to $3bn from the Central Holding Authority, as well as authorise the expenditure of federal government monies as well, through the SPPs and NP arrangements.
It is the right of Territorians to know where their tax dollars are going. Every time a Territorian buys a product at a shop, they pay tax. If they work and they are on a payroll of over $1.25m, then their employer pays a payroll tax. They pay taxes indirectly, because the royalties that are paid will be recovered by many mining companies from the product that ultimately ends up on the shelf. Territorians are taxpayers and they have a right to have their budgets scrutinised to the point where scrutiny is over, not to satisfy some arbitrary time limit which happens to suit the government and the way it approaches budgetary planning.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for supporting this motion. I know there are a number of new members to the Assembly who have not been through an estimates process before and I, like the member for Port Darwin, commend the experience to them. It is a great opportunity to inquire of government, and to inquire directly, through the minister, of public servants exactly about programs and outcomes. I have always found it, as a backbencher and also as a minister, a very good way of getting a handle on government business and what departments do. I believe it is a very important process for all of us, on both sides of the House.
New members may not be aware that it was this government, when we came into office in 2001, which instituted the estimates process, and I had the honour of being the Chair of the Estimates Committee at that time. We went to Tasmania to see firsthand how Estimates works in a parliament approximately the size of this one. Our estimates processes are modelled quite closely on what happens in Tasmania, except, of course, they have an Upper House and there is some duplication in the estimates process.
It could be said, and always could be said, that we need more time for estimates, but I believe four-and-a-half hours is sufficient if the time is managed properly – the first thing, and if there is strategic questioning.
Mr Elferink: That is ridiculous. That is a ridiculous statement.
Dr BURNS: It is the job of the opposition to come forward with your questions, with your strategies, with the areas you are going to focus on; and obviously you will do that.
Mr Elferink: Why can we not focus on the whole budget? Why do we have to focus on parts of it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As new shadow ministers, I believe it is a great experience for you. Everyone not only looks at the ministers, but they also look at the opposition side and think: ‘Well, member for X was on the ball with their particular questions, and asked very good questions’. It sorts the wheat from the chaff, as it were, in terms of opposition members, who is moving up the scale and who might be staying where they are. It is an opportunity for everyone. I commend it.
There is a process, as you will find out. I believe from our side, we try to answer as well as we can the questions that are asked of us, and those we do not have the information for right there and then we undertake to answer before that session of estimates ends. We do try to get the public service to come back with the answers.
Once again, it comes back to resources. One member may have even asked, at one stage, how many bed pans there were at a particular hospital - which is a little hard to answer. But crucial strategic questions are welcome.
From the minister’s side, we welcome the process of estimates. I certainly do because it is a way, not only to inquire about what ministers do, but to inquire about what departments do, and as the member for Port Darwin said, it is really something for the people of the Northern Territory. I commend the experience. They are long days and long nights but they can be very fruitful. I am very much looking forward to estimates 2009-10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Financial Management Act to reflect the new federal financial arrangements as a result of the intergovernmental agreement signed at COAG in November 2008.
The new agreements reduce a number of Special Purpose Payments from almost 100 to five, and introduce a new type of funding, called National Partnerships, that promote reform and innovation in service delivery. This agreement also streamlines funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
Under previous arrangements, tied Commonwealth funding was paid by Commonwealth line agencies directly to state and territory line agencies. With the new arrangements, funding in the form of Specific Purpose Payments and National Partnership Agreements will be paid by the Commonwealth Treasury to state and territory treasuries. The payments will then be on-passed to relevant line agencies.
In order to achieve the most appropriate mechanism to implement the new arrangements, a review was undertaken of the Territory’s financial management framework and the associated provisions of the Financial Management Act. Consistent with the approach adopted by other jurisdictions, tied funding from the Commonwealth will now be received into the Central Holding Authority and paid to the agencies in the form of an appropriation.
In order to facilitate this change, a new appropriation purpose termed ‘Commonwealth Appropriation’ has been established. In establishing this new appropriation purpose it was also necessary to take into consideration the sometimes significant and unanticipated increases in Commonwealth funding that can occur during the year. Examples of this are the payments resulting from the Northern Territory Emergency Response and the more recent Nation Building and Jobs Plan Fiscal Stimulus Package. These amounts are outside the Territory’s control. The different nature and magnitude of the new appropriation necessitates an alternative approach to varying this type of appropriation.
Commonwealth appropriation will need to be varied in line with Commonwealth revenue received for Special Purpose Payments and National Partnerships. A new provision has been established in the form of a standing appropriation to allow changes in Commonwealth funding throughout the year. Under this standing appropriation, the Treasurer will have the authority to increase the Commonwealth appropriation to match a variation to an existing or new Commonwealth agreement.
It is appropriate for the Treasurer to authorise such increases in appropriation for Commonwealth-funded activities, as once an agreement with a Commonwealth has been reached for new or increased funding, there will be no choice but to authorise an increase in Commonwealth appropriation. This new provision is consistent with that of other jurisdictions. However, in order to provide further accountability, transparency and consistency with other variations to appropriation, the new section will also require the Treasurer to table a statement of the increase within six sitting days of the Assembly.
As you know, under the current arrangements appropriation can be increased during a financial year up to a maximum of 5% of total appropriations. This provision will now apply to total appropriation, excluding Commonwealth appropriation.
It is a new funding arrangement commenced on 1 January 2009. The proposed amendments will be retrospectively applied. This also necessitates the introduction of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill scheduled to be tabled later in these sittings. Accordingly, this amendment bill is required to be enacted before the commencement of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill, the Appropriation 2009-10 Bill and prior to 30 June 2009.
The requirement to amend the Financial Management Act to accommodate the arrangements has provided an opportunity for other contemporary changes and administrative amendments to be made. These include additional definitions, the repealing of redundant sections and the alignment of reporting requirements with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY BILL
(Serial 22)
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it was just a couple of months ago in this House, in the last sittings, that I saw the most extraordinary thing occur. The member for Johnston, in moving that this House adjourn, if my memory serves me correctly, leapt to his feet at a speed that was somewhat befitting a superhero - the first one that sprung to mind was the Flash. In fact, the movement was so fast and sudden that it prompted a colleague of mine, the member for Port Darwin, to refer to that sudden movement by the member for Johnston as ‘blue shifting’. For those who do not know what blue shifting is it is a term that relates to a phenomenon that happens at a speed close to the speed of light and, in fact, it was a compliment of a kind. What it does is illustrate and demonstrate just how quickly members of this government can move when it suits their purpose; and that was designed to adjourn the debate and gag the opposition, again. We have all talked ad nauseam about how the government does that to us.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the introduction of the geothermal legislation in this parliament. On 14 February 2006, more than three years ago, the member for Casuarina promised in this House that there would be a geothermal bill by late 2006. Well, that came and went fairly well. On 26 October 2006, the then minister Natt put out a press release promising another geothermal bill. Christmas came and went and, on 15 February 2007, then minister Natt again promised this parliament there would be another geothermal bill.
It is going to be a little tedious to hear all this, Madam Speaker, but the government was mysteriously quiet on the issue for another nine months or so and then minister Natt again promised the parliament that geothermal legislation was being developed. Finally, the Chief Minister chimed into the debate and on 21 February 2008 he re-announced to the parliament the importance of geothermal energy saying it was one of the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory.
This critical issue is now enshrined in this bill some three years after it was first announced by the government, as opposed to the blue shifting member for Johnston who leapt to his feet at such a great rate of knots. This bill moved at a pace somewhat more akin to its natural surroundings deep inside the earth or, more specifically, it has been moving faster than a speeding tectonic plate. However, it is pleasing that we finally do have a geothermal bill and that the government has got its act together on this.
I support this bill today, with a few words of caution thrown into the mix. First, I thank the minister for Resources for providing a briefing, not only on the bill as a whole but also on the amendments which will be placed before the House today. As usual, the Resource department staff was very helpful and accommodating. In examining the bill and the recent amendments it appears to have most, if not all, the bases covered, particularly given that it is very new legislation. In reality, what will happen now is that we will wait to see how it works in practical application; there well may be some issues that need to be solved as time goes by. However, I am still a little bewildered over the three-year thing and how, only two weeks ago, there were still amendments coming in. I would have thought they would have been quite on top of it by then. Anyway, here we have it.
The intention of the bill is to introduce regulatory requirements to allow commercial and sustainable exploration and extraction of geothermal energy resources. It seems this bill was drafted somewhat along the lines of the Mining Act, Petroleum Act, and the Mining Management Act; there also seems to be some similarities to the Victorian Geothermal Act. Other jurisdictions have introduced geothermal legislation by way of introducing amendments to existing acts, but the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources has decided to create a new legislative instrument for simplicity, and to more easily make changes which may be needed as the industry develops. I believe it is wise to make geothermal legislation stand alone.
Activities under the geothermal bill will also be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act and regulations. Other OHS provisions have been built into the bill as well. Speaking of offences, one of the matters I wish to explore in the committee stage of this debate relates to clause 99(2), continuing offences, and the penalty provisions which are contained therein.
Under the bill the exploration leases are generous, up to 2000 adjoining blocks, and that can be made larger with ministerial approval. There are measures in place to prevent prospectors sitting on large tracts of land for an extended time.
There is provision that enables regulations to be created for the payment of royalties from geothermal energy production in clause 34 but, at the time of briefing, the department did not know how much, or how royalties would be applied in the Northern Territory. Western Australia and South Australia have set their royalties for geothermal energy at 2.5% of the gross value; that is, the well-head price of the product that is produced. The money from any geothermal royalties in Western Australia will be placed in a low-energy emissions fund which will enable the future development and investment in low-emission technology and infrastructure. The amount of royalties in Victoria is determined by the minister on each individual licence. Queensland’s petroleum royalty is currently at 10%, and it is assumed that the energy from geothermal resources will fall into this category. New South Wales has a 4% royalty charge on the ex-mine value of the geothermal substances.
The reason I raise the issue of royalties is because the government will have to consider this matter as time goes by, and compose and implement a royalty regime that meets the balance between providing revenue for the government, yet still encourages the development of the industry by the commercial sector.
There are four main types of geothermal energy. Hydrothermal is the first, whereby naturally occurring hot water is brought to the Earth’s surface and used to create electricity or to provide direct heating. Currently, this is the only source that is used to generate commercially viable energy. However, that is not the type of geothermal energy that appears to exist in the Northern Territory. The next is geopressure where dissolved methane is extracted from hot water brought up from depths of between 3 km and 6 km.
Hot dry rock is the third type, and this is the type of geothermal energy source that exploration has identified as being available in the Northern Territory. There is a large tract of land that starts somewhere just north of Tennant Creek, moves to the north and north-east off to the south of Katherine a little and, then up into Arnhem Land which has been identified as carrying the right type of heat signatures at 5 km depth that might facilitate geothermal energy extraction. The process of using hot dry rock involves the pumping of water at high pressures into the Earth’s crust onto rock which does not contain fissures or fractures, creating a reservoir of superheated water that can be drawn back to the surface for creating power.
The fourth type is the extraction of magma, and there is no practical means of extracting magma energy at this point in time.
All that said, geothermal energy, in reality, is still very much a fledgling industry. South Australia and Tasmania both have small scale geothermal production facilities, but this source of energy for Australia has very far to go. I am pleased that federal and state governments have been proactive in introducing legislation to provide a regulatory framework for geothermal energy. Pleasing also is the fact that governments have facilitated and supported the research, development and implementation of small scale geothermal exploration. The federal government has pumped many millions of dollars into geothermal research but it is, of course, much bigger overseas.
The federal government program has committed around $500m into development - $425m of that to deal with renewable energy production; a $50m specific grant for geothermal drilling; and $25m for a second generation biofuel program. There was $10m invested in a geodynamic drilling project under renewable energy funding in 2008 in New South Wales, and just over $28m spent by the federal government and South Australian government, which was invested in a couple of projects in South Australia.
Government funding is not the only way to source funds to work on geothermal energy. In one example, an international company recently applied to the World Bank’s GeoFund for $US9m to support projects in a number of countries overseas. This is the type of funding opportunity that might well exist for geothermal explorers, not only in the Northern Territory, but for the rest of Australia as well.
On the basis that other states have provided significant funding opportunities to develop geothermal in their patches, I am hoping that the Northern Territory government also looks upon geothermal with the same warm and fuzzy glow. However, a word of caution here - whilst everything in its power should be done by government to promote and facilitate geothermal energy in the Territory, I would urge at this point some degree of restraint when it comes to spending a great deal of money in these tight times. The Territory government has already plunged us into a $200m black hole and we are in the middle of a global financial crisis; we are in the grips of recession and will be for some time, and it will take years to pay back the debt that the government has visited upon Territorians.
While it is important to provide resources to promote geothermal in the Territory, as a government, you must also look upon the time frame for a return on your investment. A $1m spend next year, for example, may not see any return through royalties for many years to come given the very early stages that geothermal is at in Australia. There is an enormous amount of research and development that needs to be undertaken before the processes of extracting power from hot dry rock to geothermal energy are brought to commercial fruition.
I see the government’s 2030 draft plan talks about a future fund of some kind. That may well be an option for the royalty revenue that geothermal will bring to the Territory. However, more to the point is, and the government would do well to consider this once they have established a royalty regime, and that is pushing those royalties towards research into other renewable energy.
The Northern Territory has abundant sunshine, for example, yet, other than by way of a small trial in Central Australia, there is little or nothing being done by the government to develop and promote solar power. The Northern Territory is also a very windy place, just ask the member for Barkly. Tennant Creek possess more wind than the combined power of the rhetoric-driven hot air that comes from the government across the way, yet I see little or no evidence in exploring wind power as a source of power in the Northern Territory. In fact, organisations such an ANZSES, the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, seem to be doing far more in the field of renewable energy than that being undertaken by the Northern Territory government at present.
Fortunately, the Renewable and Remote Power Generation Program, a federally funded program, provides cash rebates for people installing renewable energy solutions in place of fossil fuel generation, but still the NT government’s commitment to exploring alternative energy sources seems to be stuck in some sort of prehistoric Labor tar pit.
The other alternative energy sources which I have mentioned, wind and solar, have been around for much longer than geothermal and represent two of the proven forms of renewable energy. It almost beggars belief that so little has been done to look at how these other sources of renewable energy can be harnessed in the Territory. Another form of renewable energy that this government needs to look at, particularly given the huge range of water movement in the Northern Territory, is tidal power. Like geothermal, this is a fledgling industry and much needs to be done to explore this as an alternative to fossil fuel power generation.
It is almost incredulous that I stand here today talking about renewable energy such as geothermal yet, in a complete slap in the face to renewable energy concepts, is the woeful record this government has on spending money to run its diesel power generation system. Last year, 22 million litres of diesel fuel went through Channel Island costing somewhere in the vicinity of $28m. That only relates to Channel Island; it does not relate to any of the regional or remote locations in the Territory. That is an enormous amount of money which could well have been saved; or part of it, at least, could have gone into research and development of other renewable sources. It is very disappointing that Territorians have had to foot the bill for what really is just lack of action, a lack of follow-up, by the government in getting Black Tip online.
This legislation has been a promise from the Labor government since February 2006, and the Country Liberals have been vocal in its support for legislation of this nature and critical of Labor for taking so long to get it up and running, and we remain critical.
The bill is supported by the opposition. I urge the government not to hide behind this legislation as its sole commitment to low emission energy. Much more support will be needed in this area to make it a viable alternative energy supply.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome this legislation. I know the member for Katherine has spoken about the CLP’s support for this legislation but I say, if you will pardon me, that I believe I was pushing this barrow for much longer than the CLP. Geothermal is an issue I raised from the first time I came into parliament.
I take up many of the points the member for Katherine has made about looking at some of the other forms of energy. Yesterday I raised using solar, wind, and some of the gas we are getting from Black Tip to take away dependency on diesel, especially in remote communities. The issue is similar to Japan’s philosophy about energy: we do not need put all our eggs in one basket. Our energy sources should be broad so if one energy source fails at least we have other energy sources.
I also believe we need to divide our energy into, you might say, a light load type of energy as compared with heavy based requirements for energy. Most people could probably run their house on solar or wind as long as they had adequate storage of the energy, which is in a battery form, at night or when the wind is not blowing or when the sun is behind the clouds.
The Territory is a great place to develop that type of industry where we are less reliant on other forms of energy. The reality is that we also require heavier forms of energy if we want to have a manufacturing industry. An aluminium industry requires enormous amounts of power and, therefore, we must look at other sources of energy. Geothermal, if it can be shown to be viable, is one of a suite of forms of energy which could be used in Australia.
I do not have any problem saying I support nuclear power, as well. I do not say it is the be-all and end-all. Look at Japan’s range of power options: it has nuclear, coal, oil, LNG - which comes from Australia and other places, solar and wind. It is not saying one is necessarily better than the other; it is saying that a sensible option, when it comes to future power sources, is to look at a range of power sources.
I always wonder when people go crook about nuclear energy as a legitimate form of energy if they know that American submarines have been going around for about the last 50 years with a little box of uranium, and there have been very few incidents. They travel for over a year without being refuelled. They can have a source of power in a very small room that can drive a large submarine for months on end. People may have concerns about nuclear, especially regards waste, but technology changes and we move on. Let us not close ourselves off from these options. After all, the reality is we are one of the biggest exporters of uranium in the world and that comes from our own area, the Northern Territory.
If we are discussing geothermal as a source of energy from hot dry rocks there is probably some doubt as to whether you can class it as a renewable form of energy. In the end, you are taking heat from granite and that granite actually heats up the water – by the way, it is radioactive granite – and eventually that water will cool down. So you need to have other places where you can get heated water, which may be in the vicinity but, in the end, that source of water will lose its heat and not be renewable unless you want to come back in maybe a million years’ time when it has been able to reheat again.
I do not think it is fair to say that the hot dry rock method of geothermal energy is strictly a renewable form of energy. What I would say is that it is a very clean form of energy; it has very few pollutants. As far as I know it has no carbon emissions, although people always say to produce the equipment to build a geothermal plant you will require carbon emissions, but they apply that to the argument against nuclear power; you can apply it to any form of generation. You will have to produce carbon emissions to produce a generator until you find a form of energy that does not produce carbon, and a form of energy that can be used in manufacturing heavy equipment like steel and aluminium and those types of products.
Madam Speaker, this bill is really not a statement; I do not believe it will necessarily send the Northern Territory off onto a path of great activity in relation to exploration. It is very expensive for geothermal technology to happen.
I have looked at the Innamincka fields, and they are really at the limits of drilling. They use the oil industry which is a partner in the development of the Innamincka fields through the company, Geodynamics - and there are no other companies. They are drilling down to 4 km, which are some of the deepest holes ever drilled. That requires special techniques. It is not only at the edge of the technology; it is also at the edge of how many dollars you can spend as it is very expensive.
That is why I am a little disappointed with the federal government. The federal government is pouring millions into finding a way to get rid of carbon. One of the methods is trying to pump it into the ground. I picked up a very interesting article from the Melbourne Age, on Monday in the business section. The headline is ‘King coal’s push for carbon storage an impossible dream’. It talks about a gentleman called Graham Brown who, it says, calls a spade ‘a bloody shovel’. It says he:
I think he joined the New South Wales Greens as well; he does not regard himself as a politician. He says in relation to storing it underground, and I will read from the article:
He also talks about how you would transport this gas to wherever it has to go, which people do not understand. He said:
If you have to move this somewhere, because a coal-fired power station might be nowhere near the land that is so-called suitable for injection of this carbon; that also has to be taken into account. The article said:
He says the only place we may be able to store gas is in the Cooper Basin, which is near where the geothermal activity is. So, we have a person who has worked in the coal industry for a long time, who has taken the effort to look at the business of storing carbon in the ground, and says it is, basically, just a pipe dream. I tend to agree; it is unproven technology. The government is pouring money into it hoping to come up with a solution because many people work for the coal industry in Australia; it is a very big industry.
However, if you compare the money the government is putting into so-called technology in regard to storing carbon, and the amount of money they are putting into developing a clean form of heavy-based energy - that is, geothermal - it is a pittance. They announced some money in the budget - I believe it is only $12m or $14m and it will probably be over so many years - but it is chicken feed compared with what has been given to the coal industry. We really should be asking the federal government, if it believes in finding alternative clean forms of energy, why it is not pouring much more money into this possibility of a heavy-based energy source.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the bill which has been presented today. It is only the beginning; it may be many years before it actually happens, because, the Northern Territory you have to realise, has 200000 people, most of those, about two-thirds, live in the Darwin region. You need to have this source of energy fairly close to populated areas, at least large populated areas, so you can pay for the cost of transmitting electricity from those areas. It may not yet be the time to develop a viable geothermal industry at the present time, but we have to start somewhere, we have to give companies the ability to start looking for it. You never know, the technology might improve to a point where it is much easier to drill; we may be able to have small scale geothermal generating plants which may be quite suitable for outback communities.
This is the first stage; technology changes. As I said with uranium, what we did with nuclear power plants in the 1950s may be totally different to what we do in the next half a century or so. We need to keep our minds open in regard to technology. I do not believe we need to go back and say everything will be run on solar and wind. That is a foolish attitude. Some people may still believe we should walk everywhere and only eat herbs. We are a growing population that requires jobs, that requires energy, and we need to ensure we work towards the future as energy will be the lifeblood of our country in how successful we are into the future. If we can be dependent on our own energy sources that will be really important in the way the world is running to date.
I am very pleased to see some changes in the bill. I have read this document from one end to the other and, unfortunately, the government decided there were a few errors in it. Then it came back another month or two later and it is hard to remember all the information you read that long ago.
I had a good briefing from the department, and I thank the minister for that. I am particularly happy with the section where this act now binds the Crown. In the previous act it did not bind the Crown, and I thought that was a bit rich. It is like saying: ‘If you people want to drill for geothermal energy, you have to stick with this lot of rules.’ The Crown does not have to that because, as you know, the Crown has the ability to undertake exploration of its own. I welcome the change. I believe the government needs to come under the same rules as the rest of us when it comes to exploring for geothermal energy.
Many of the other changes also make a lot of sense. It is a big bill, and I imagine it is difficult to get it right the first time. The only comment I would make is it is a pity, even though it has been delayed once, it may have come back as a completely rewritten bill because this is the first bill and it is going to have amendments from day one. If I were putting it forward, I would like the bill to be correct at the stage of introduction rather than having to make a number of amendments to the it, because it looks like it was not quite right - which it was not - and it shows to whoever reads this bill that the first time quite a few changes needed to happen.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I also support some of the comments of the member for Johnston. We are talking about energy which needs continual debate. We are pushing for carbon reduction. We seem to be scared to talk about nuclear. We do not put enough money into things like geothermal. If we are fair dinkum, we should look at all options.
I have some doubts about the carbon tax. I know what is trying to be achieved, but I do not know if we will have this massive bureaucracy which will work out complicated formulas to decide how much this industry pays in carbon tax, and how much that one pays in carbon tax. I would like someone to say: ‘Let us look at this from an efficiency angle. Is this worth all the effort?’ Will we produce more carbon producing all the paper required to document the carbon tax we are going to collect, etcetera, and all the extra people who have to be employed and who travel around, and all these types of things? Are we making life more complicated than we need to? What we should be doing is phasing out our coal industry; phasing it out, because it is the industry in rural Australia keeping people employed; phasing it out and looking at new technologies. And not just wind and solar. Tidal is important, too and has been working in the Apsley Strait, between Bathurst and Melville Islands; but there are issues about tidal.
We also need to focus on technology we know it clean. We know geothermal is clean. We know nuclear is clean. It does have some issues. I believe Australia leads the way in dealing with waste, but I do not believe we should be shutting ourselves off to being broadminded enough to move away from what I call the ‘religious debate’, where some members of the Greens bring this debate to a point where you are a heretic if you disagree with them. We should be broadminded enough to discuss these issues as they are important issues.
Regardless of whether you believe in global warming, or the world being heated up, from my point of view it is about whether you should pollute. You do not throw rubbish into the river and you do not chuck rubbish onto the road. Why should you put rubbish into the air? To me, that is the basic philosophy. If it happens to have an effect on heating the world, then that is a side effect we should not have even got to. We should be careful in what we do - if you are talking about container deposits - it is an issue about not wasting, doing things the right way; looking after our environment by doing the right thing.
Let us encourage broader debate on this issue. I ask the Northern Territory government to see whether they can get the federal government to put more money into geothermal because I believe it is well worth it. It is an option amongst many other options. I thank the government for introducing this bill today.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. Geothermal energy capture and legislation is not new, nor is it special here in Australia or around the world. Temperatures in the Earth increase by 10C to 50C per kilometre around the planet. For example, the crust of the Earth is around 30 km deep and has temperatures ranging from 15 C near the surface to 540C near the base of the crust. The bulk of this heat is generated from radioactive decay of naturally occurring potassium, thorium and uranium isotopes in the minerals in the upper crust of the Earth. The geothermal energy power generation is about capturing this heat and turning it into energy.
The first geothermal power plant was invented and built around 1904, which tells us that it is not a new form of energy or technology. It was at a place called Larderello in Italy by a fellow called Prince Piero Ginori Conti. The first modern geothermal power plants were also built in this town in Italy. They were completely destroyed in World War II and rebuilt, and today after 90 years, this field in Italy is still producing geothermal energy.
The first geothermal power plants in the United States were built around 1962 at the Geysers dry steam field in northern California. It is still the largest producing geothermal field in the world. Across the globe there are over 26 countries that have either geothermal technology and/or plants including New Zealand, Japan, America, Thailand, France, Italy, Kenya, Zambia, the Philippines and Mexico, and many more. In Australia, South Australia is well-known for its geothermal activity and has around 51 permits and five applications since 1999 involving around 10 companies.
Australia’s geothermal energy resources have the potential to become a significant source of secure, renewable, low emissions base-load power for the future. Preliminary resource evaluation work by Geoscience Australia have suggested just 1% of the energy from rocks hotter than 150C and shallower than 5000 m would yield approximately 190 million petajoules of energy, or about 26 000 times Australia’s primary usage in 2005.
To date geothermal energy has played a minimal role in the country’s energy mix, with only one small, remote plant in operation at Birdsville, Queensland. During the last decade, however, interest in geothermal energy has increased significantly due, I believe, to two major factors. First, research into Australia’s geothermal resources has provided evidence that electricity generation from geothermal resources is possible in Australia; and second, the challenge posed by climate change has become a significant driver for policy development by governments at all levels.
Over the last 10 years there has been a reasonable level of research which indicates that Australia, and the Territory, has a significant geothermal energy resource. Regions of high crustal temperature at depths of greater than 5 km may be economic targets for hot dry rock technology. A new database has been developed for the country which has meant newer and improved maps for use by industry and government. However, while there have been improvements in the data and the knowledge, the latter work builds on previous work and, as a consequence, data distribution across the continent still tends to be patchy and irregular with some regions well represented and others not. Much of the data is sourced from petroleum exploration and production wells and, as a result, there is a strong tendency for it to cluster within known hydrocarbon provinces.
In the Territory, the area most referenced in research is the McArthur Basin which is the land in the northeast of the Territory from the coast through to just north of Tennant Creek which takes in the Mataranka and the Daly regions. Other areas in the Territory include an area in the bottom southwest corner of the Territory, and a small part in the Davenport province.
Elsewhere in Australia there is legislation to cover geothermal exploration and development, and all states have variously named legislation. The national legislation covering this area is the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The legislation here today mirrors that of the Mining Act and the Mine Management Act and was managed in a similar way to activities under those acts. Now that the legislation is here perhaps you may see some activity on the ground as the framework and structure for operations will be clear for industry and other interested stakeholders, such as land councils.
Having said that, I do not believe we should get too excited nor should this government try to kid people that geothermal energy is the way of the future in the Territory’s energy mix, because it is not -, at least not in the short term. In Australia it is relatively new technology and the activity is highly expensive, as has been said previously. By way of comparison, a 50 m to 100 m mineral exploration drill hole will cost between $50 000 to $100 000. A geothermal drill hole, which will need to be at least 3 km to 4 km in depth, will cost around $8m to $10m and take upwards of three months to drill. To get the flow of the energy and the water through the ground you are going to need two drill holes, so you are looking at a minimum of, say, $20m for two drill holes, and that is just the drilling; so you could have upwards of $15m to $20m. Even if there is energy and a source identified, there will need to be a customer right next door to the exploration and processing plant for the energy. The heat will not be able to be transported over hundreds of miles to a customer; it will need to be right next door to a mine or a large community to make it economically viable.
There are companies in Australia working in this field. I am interested to know what plans the government has to attract them to the Northern Territory, and what incentives the government has in mind, given its expensive nature and greenfields, and also given the current economic issues of the resource industry.
I would also be interested to know what work this government is doing with the other states and the Commonwealth government in regard to the geothermal industry development framework and the geothermal roadmap. Also, what work the government is planning to source research and development grants, and how companies wanting to come to the Territory will be encouraged to take up grant offers, and whether this government plans to develop a framework in the Territory to support this new industry.
Some of the challenges I believe this government, and governments across the country, face in regard to this new form of energy is the actual reporting of the resource and the reserves, given that it is new technology, not dissimilar to how they report the mineral side of the exploration industry and petroleum; also, challenges in regard to research and development. As I said, the research and information is patchy and it does tend to cluster around the hydrocarbon fields. What is the database? How is it going to be established in the Northern Territory in regard to collection of the information?
Of course, assuming we do get companies and they do have the funds to do the drilling and exploration work, how is the government going to support companies progressing towards the development and the technology required in power plants, given that there are issues with the power plants as we have seen only too clearly in South Australia recently?
One other way I believe this government could help in regard to this type of industry and other junior sides of the industry is for the minister and the government to lobby their federal counterparts in Canberra to set up a flow-through share scheme which could go some way towards securing the future health not only of mineral exploration but also geothermal exploration. I know the previous Coalition government in Canberra was not receptive to setting up this flow-through share scheme, despite the consistent and hard lobbying of industry. However, the Labor Party previously has committed to the implementation of a flow-through share scheme and, perhaps, it is timely for this Northern Territory Labor government to get on the blower to their mates in Canberra to see if we can have something happen.
I ask the minister to take this matter up with his federal colleague so we can get more activity into the Northern Territory and we can be ready and prepared for when the mineral global downturn does change and we get to be a buoyant industry again in the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister and the agency on the bill, and also in positioning the Territory with the rest of our global counterparts on the move forward to both renewable and alternative energy resources.
On a subject of such importance, let me place on the record the references that I used in the parliament to develop the supportive statement I make today. The reference has come from Catherine Brahic ‘Gives us clarity in climate targets’ in New Scientist, 21 March 2009, and Rachel Novak, ‘Geothermal explosion rocks green energy hopes’, also in the New Scientist Online. What I am talking about today is hot rocks and options for a carbon-free future.
The legislation we are considering today is fundamentally about facilitating a new option as we confront the stark challenges we face with global warming. It is not about picking winners; it is about creating certainty for a fledgling industry that has great potential in meeting global warming head-on. It is about giving us an option to utilise clean, green energy; it is not a solution in and of itself. As we approach the next round of international discussions on climate change in Copenhagen this December there is nothing to suggest the global threat of climate change is diminishing. Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, give us no comfort. In fact, things may be getting worse at a faster rate.
In March this year, a summit of 2500 climate scientists met in Copenhagen in preparation for December’s international convention, to look at the current situation and where we might be heading. Martin Parry, of the Grant and Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, was quoted in the New Scientist last month as saying:
Geothermal power is but one of the possibilities that presents itself to us, albeit one that has huge potential as sustainable energy with negligible carbon output. Its huge potential advantage is as a source of relatively inexpensive base load power, thus reducing our dependency on coal or gas, or our potential dependency on uranium.
While geothermal energy has been used one way or another for many thousands of years, its source as a producer of electricity is barely a century old. However, the kinds of geothermal resources largely derived from volcanic activity that have been exploited in this fashion are, effectively, not available in Australia. Apart from the potential resources from the Great Artesian Basin effectively used at a small power plant at Birdsville, the real future would seem to be using the resources of what has come to be known as hot rocks. Put simply, at depths of 3.5 km to 5 km, significant areas of the Australian continent contain high geothermal potential with temperatures of 250C and above. The rocks at this depth achieve this heat from either radioactive decay or magnetic activity. Technology developed in the US strongly suggests that this energy can be utilised by systems of governed wells, where water is pumped down one hole into these strata, and transferred through fractured or porous rock to another well which brings steam to the surface. That steam can then be utilised directly to power a turbine or, indirectly, environment systems through heat transfer to other working fluids that produce a turbine and power a turbine.
It sounds relatively straightforward, but it is not that simple. Locating appropriate drilling sites must be based on knowledge of relatively deep geological data which, in Australia, is still significantly incomplete. Drilling at such depths, again, is pushing the boundaries of technologies being adapted from the hydrocarbon extraction industry. It is high risk in terms of investing in exploration, and in terms of investments in drilling and extraction, and then power generation.
And this is where the legislation comes in. It gives companies operating in the Northern Territory certainty about the exploration and extraction regimes that they will be able to operate under. There are four major potential regions for geothermal power generation in the Territory. The largest stretches from around Tennant Creek, in my electorate of the Barkly, north through the Ashburton Province, the Dunmarra and McArthur Basins, through to the Arafura Basin in Arnhem Land. Other areas include a region south of the Davenport Ranges, the Amadeus Basin in the south-west of the Territory, and another region in the Simpson Desert. The information on this is largely drawn directly from oil and gas exploration drilling, and inferred from other sources. The legislation gives this potential industry the green light to move towards utilising hot rocks as a green energy.
Again, things are not as straightforward as they seem. The first hot rocks proof of concept plan, designed to generate 1 MW for the remote South Australian town of Innamincka, offers much promise, and is widely seen as a pilot for scaling plants up to a 500 MW operation. Its 4 km well into the Cooper Basin is the most ambitious project in Australia to date. However, only three days ago, Geodynamics, the Brisbane-based company trialling the site, reported a major breach of the well. Geodynamics holds the rights to a potential power supply of up to 10 GWh trapped in a 1000 km2 slab of hot granite deep under the town of Innamincka in South Australia. The cause of the breach is yet to be determined, but really illustrates the risks of this early stage of development of hot rocks geothermal energy production.
It is early days yet, however, the Henderson government is putting the Territory, through this legislation, in a position where investment, exploration and research can be encouraged. As I mentioned, geothermal energy is but one possibility, one option, in meeting the extreme challenges we face in combating climate change in this country and internationally.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very interested in this bill. I have been interested in geothermal and hot rock technology for quite some time. When I was first elected to the federal parliament I ended up on a number of House of Representative standing committees. One of those committees was the Science and Innovation Committee and another one was the Industry and Resources Committee which I served on with Martin Ferguson, the current federal Resources minister, with whom I had a good chat this morning about other issues. He was also very much across the geothermal issues that were being raised. We received many submissions and representations from the company that has been mentioned this morning, Geodynamics.
Geodynamics is a rather interesting company. They are very much, as the member for Barkly said, interested in the hot rock technology. This bill could have probably been better named to include the words ‘hot rock’; geothermal can take into account anything. I do not know of any geysers bubbling around the Territory or steam pouring out of the ground. That is not to say there isn’t any; maybe we have not discovered them. What we are talking about here is hot rock technology. The member for Barkly has done me a great service by mentioning that this morning. Geodynamics, as has been said, is operating out of Innamincka at the Cooper Basin. It is drilling for hot rocks somewhere between 3.5 km and 5 km below the surface to rocks that typically will range from somewhere between 200C and 250C.
Geodynamics, contrary to what the member for Nelson said, has received significant government support over a number of years, not just from the Australian government but from many governments around the world. The location was chosen from locations around the world. It might interest members to know that a joint venture and a group of scientists got together and searched the world to find the best possible location to run this hot rock technology pilot program. They settled on Innamincka in South Australia because that was, as far as they could see, the best possible location. Between all the interested parties they have managed to shake up around $US500m over the last 10 or so years, and that has been grants from governments, as I say, all around the world. The Australian government has stuck in a significant portion of those grants to enable the research to go ahead.
I am very interested to know, seeing that the Henderson government is so keen on this technology, what its contribution to that pilot project has been. How much money has the Northern Territory government put forward to prove this technology? The experiment has been plagued with problems all the way through. As the member for Barkly said, it entails drilling two holes, pumping water down one hole, it goes through fractures in the hot rocks and the like, and comes out the other end and it is connected in a circular pipe and you can keep churning it around and around and using a heat exchanger to take off electricity.
Originally, they had problems with the fracturing of the rock. They pumped cold water down one of the holes; the idea is that there are fractures and porous rock and cold water will further fracture the rock and eventually pop up out of the other hole. They had great problems doing that and, a couple of days ago, the most recent incident.
Under Australian law, as a listed company, you have to advise the Australian Stock Exchange of anything that may influence investors and the like, and Geodynamics issued an announcement to the ASX on 27 April, only a couple of days ago. I will read it just to put it on the Parliamentary Record. It is headed ‘ASX announcement, 27 April 2009’:
Water and steam are still flowing from Habanero 3.
the commissioning crew being progressively demobilised. The timing of recommencement of commissioning activities is currently uncertain.
And it says where to get further information and the like.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that document for the ease of Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: This technology is extremely unproven. The jury is out as to whether the technology will work. I hope, as I am sure all members of this place hope, that the technology can be proven because I believe it is a great opportunity for Australia. One of the problems with it, of course, is that geothermal resources do not necessarily occur next to major urban areas, and there is a cost in transmitting that electricity.
The member for Nelson also talked about the massive costs involved in drilling 3 km and 4 km deep wells. It is not cheap, but then again everything worth having comes at a price. I hope the technology works. The member for Nelson mentioned there has not been adequate support for geothermal technology in this country. Again, I would question the government as to what levels of support they have given Geodynamics by way of grants and government assistance to prove that technology. The member for Nelson made a case that there should be more funding put into technology such as geothermal technology as opposed to what is commonly known as clean coal technology. I believe this is a common misconception around the country.
The fact is the vast majority of the world’s electricity sources are fuelled by coal. Every eight months, China is replicating the total Australian electricity system in China. Basically, the equivalent of all our electricity generation is being replicated in China every eight months. The vast majority of that is in coal-fired power stations. Those coal-fired power stations have a life of up to 60 years. If the world wants to get serious and make deep cuts into carbon emissions, the way to tackle that is by developing clean coal technology. We can have as much renewable technology and nuclear technology as we want but, ultimately, those coal-fired power stations are going to keep churning out carbon dioxide for up to another 60 years, even if the world stopped building coal-fired power stations today. I put to the House that that is not going to happen. The demand for energy is too great for countries to simply stop building coal-fired power stations.
The reality is that unless we do something about the emissions from coal-fired power stations, we are not actually going to reduce emissions. We may well stabilise emissions by developing a whole range of different renewable technologies, embracing nuclear, and goodness knows what is over the horizon, but we are not going to cut emissions unless the extraordinary step is taken by governments around the world to close down coal-fired power stations. For a whole range of reasons, that is not going to happen.
Australia has a significant interest in the world coal market given the fact that Australia has somewhere around 600 years of coal resource left in the ground, mining at today’s rate. Therefore, it is in Australia’s, not just commercial interest, but also environmental interest that we do something in relation to the emissions stemming from coal-fired power stations. For that reason, both the previous federal government and the current federal government are wedded to the idea of creating a system which can clean the carbon dioxide out of the emissions from coal-fired power stations and dispose of them in some way or form.
Member for Nelson, that is why there is this large investment in clean coal technologies. That is why governments of both persuasions have sought to ensure that Australia does everything in its power to address the emissions that come from coal-fired power stations because, unless that can happen, we are not going to make the deep cuts into carbon emissions that stem from electricity generation.
This is all, in a lot of ways, pie-in-the-sky stuff; this geothermal technology. The technology has not been developed. Reading from the release that Geodynamics put out, it may well be some time before it is developed, it may well be a long way off. I wonder why, in the Northern Territory, we are pushing this bill through now. I listened to the comments from the member for Katherine who said the government is acting too slowly – a three year time frame. I am not opposed to this legislation; I believe we should put in place legislation that will allow all of this type of technology to occur – tidal power, more solar, more wind, and other renewables or low-carbon emission technologies that come about.
However, this one in particular - and I know, as the member for Katherine said, some members on the other side have an amazing ability to move quickly when they want to. What was the term you used – blue …?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Blue shifting.
Mr TOLLNER: Blue shifting, yes, the member for Johnston blue shifting. I think you mentioned Flash; someone referred to him as Flash. Well, I can understand that analogy. You think of the Queen song: ‘Flash, he is here to save every one of us. He is going to save the universe’. Good on you, member for Johnston, I hope you do.
It has been a slow road. I scratch my head and wonder at times why there is a push to get this legislation into the parliament at all, given the fact that the time lines in relation to this technology are not short at all. I hope and pray they become shorter. If the government is committed to this, I would love to see the government committed to funding the research that Geodynamics is doing. I put it to the minister that when he sums up he could inform the House how much contribution the government has made to the Geodynamics project, and how interested they are in that research. I think it goes hand-in-glove with this legislation. If you want to introduce the legislation, surely you must have an interest in how quickly the technology is determined.
Madam Speaker, I have grave fears that this legislation is nothing but window dressing. I have often said in this place, with this government you do not listen to what they say, you actually look at what they do. This bill, I believe, is an opportunity for the minister to walk out of this building today and do a little grandstanding, a little talk about how they are focused on reducing greenhouse emissions, how they are going to look after our environment, and a whole range of other things when, in reality, this is a nothing bill. There is no reason why, if hot rock farmers came knocking at the door, you could not push it through parliament in very quick time. I do not believe this has anything to do with actually farming hot rocks or using the hot rock resource; this is more about window dressing than anything else.
The fact is we do have huge renewable energy options in the Northern Territory. Very little research has gone into tidal power in recent years, and around the country and around the world a lot of research has been done on tidal power. The tidal power technology is constantly changing and it would be good to see the government putting some energy into looking at some of those technologies, as well as technologies in relation to solar.
As I said earlier in this speech, I was very fortunate to be a part of the Science and Innovation Standing Committee in the federal parliament; it was a fantastic committee to be involved with. We had players from all walks of life and in all different technological areas briefing us on a whole range of subjects. Some of those people who provided evidence to the committee came from the solar industry.
I think about the graphite heat storage battery - I am not sure whether members in this place have heard of that. The member for Nelson might well be interested in hearing about the graphite heat storage battery. It is solar technology which is not dependent, necessarily, on the sun shining constantly. The graphite battery will retain heat for a very long period of time. You may have cloudy days for a few days or even a week, and that battery will retain the heat. It works ideally in conjunction with solar technologies, a range of mirrors and that sort of thing, reflecting heat up into the battery. It holds a lot of promise, particularly when looking at some of the remote communities we have in the Territory and the abundance of sunlight they have in those places.
Similarly, wind technology. We have a fantastic company in the Territory called PowerCorp which supplies wind turbines around the world. At Mawson, in Antarctica, they supply something like 85% of the electricity to the Australian research station there. It is very competitive commercially, because of the high cost of transporting diesel from Australia to Antarctica. This little wind turbine comes into its own. There is a backup generator for times when is not blowing but, as I say, it supplies 85% of the electricity to that installation. I know PowerCorp has sold thousands of these to remote areas around the world. I am interested to know how many they have sold in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that it is not very many. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about PowerCorp and the Territory’s commitment to one of its own homegrown businesses which is a world leader in this particular field.
Opportunities abound in the Northern Territory for renewable energies. As the member for Nelson said, he is wedded to the idea of nuclear power and that is something that is not particularly foreign to me either. I am not averse to nuclear power provided it is done properly, the latest technology is used, and it is done in a highly regulated way taking into account all of the environmental impacts. Given the fact that Australia has somewhere around 40% of the world’s recoverable uranium resources, it beggars belief that we continue with a head-in-the-sand approach in relation to nuclear power.
I do not believe current circumstances would make the Northern Territory a good place to put a nuclear power station, the reason being is they typically produce somewhere between 1000 MW to 1500 MW. I know there is work being done in America to produce much smaller nuclear reactors, production plants that will produce somewhere around 250 MW. Maybe if that technology ever gets off the ground we may see a need or an opportunity to involve ourselves in nuclear power in the Territory.
Because of our small requirements for electricity, I believe our whole transmission system is somewhere around only 200 MW. But in other parts of Australia where energy demands are high, I cannot understand, particularly when they are talking about desalination plants as well, the simplest and most effective way of running desalination plants, I am informed, is with nuclear power. The cycles can almost be combined to the point where they are very efficient; but it is something that is off the radar as far as the current Australian government is concerned. I imagine most governments obsessed with populism will shy away from nuclear power, but at times we need to take a leadership role and explain to people just what it means.
I am concerned that this bill is nothing but window dressing. This is a way for the minister to run out these doors, call a media conference, tell them that the government is being proactive, that we have introduced geothermal legislation that will allow producers to set up in the Northern Territory. I imagine he will be a bit reluctant to tell the media that there are no producers currently knocking on our door, and that there is no real urgency in this. He will also be a bit reluctant to explain why it has taken them three years from when they first mentioned they were going to introduce the bill, to now; apart from the fact that they too recognise there is no great urgency for this legislation.
Having said that, we support this legislation. I hope and pray the technology becomes available very quickly and that we have businesses and companies who wish to utilise it come knocking at the minister’s door saying: ‘Come on minister, I am ready with core samples and all of that, have a look. Can we start mining these hot rocks and producing electricity?’ But, alas, the cynic in me tells me that is not going to happen anytime soon, and this is nothing but window dressing and a little fanfare for the minister and the Labor government to cover up for their appalling lack of action in other areas which have more possibilities and better opportunities for the Territory.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a delegation from the New South Wales parliament. My colleague, Presiding Officer, the Honourable Richard Torbay MP, the Independent member for Northern Tablelands in New South Wales and who, might I say, is on a margin of 82% - which is rather good; he is the Speaker of the New South Wales Assembly and is also the Chancellor of the University of New England. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
With the New South Wales delegation is Mr Russell Grove, Clerk of the New South Wales parliament and one of the longest-serving Clerks in Australia and, I know, a man of many secrets and stories, together with Mrs Margaret McDonald, the Executive Officer of the Speaker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome,
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move –
One of the greatest duties that we have in our political life is to be honest with the people we represent and, more to the point, honest with this House. What we have discovered from this government is that it has a predisposition, particularly this person, this Treasurer, a predisposition to use the truth in its loosest possible terms and when that fails, Madam Speaker, then the next option is a bald-faced lie.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have never lied. I have never lied in this House - never lied. I do not lie.
Mr ELFERINK: She has just done it again. That is why she is in this position.
Ms Lawrie: No, actually. People who know me know I am very honest, and very direct.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that is why she is in the position that she is in now. ‘Oh, I never lied’. Another lie. This just goes on and on. One lie begets another lie begets another lie, and all we have heard from this minister is lie after lie.
I remember question one which was put to her about Bellamack and turning off blocks to Bellamack. I have a clear recollection that in the election campaign, immediately prior to Territorians going to the vote, she said publicly that blocks in Bellamack would be turned off in early 2009. There is no chance that she is going to be turning off blocks in early 2009. I can tell you, if they manage to turn off blocks in 2009, it will be nothing shy of a miracle. But that is not the point. The point is she chose to say early 2009 simply because, as far as she was concerned, it was convenient to convince the people of the Northern Territory that she was going to be able to achieve this promise, despite the fact that she must have known she was telling lies to the people of the Territory.
It was immediately after that election campaign that she changed that language. She changed the language to: ‘Oh, 2009’. And this minister changes her position by increments, but she knows when she is making those utterances in the first instance that she is lying to Territorians and she does not care, because it is power at any price. Anyone who is familiar with the book by Frank Hardy, Power Without Glory, would be familiar with what is going on in this House.
The process of turning off Bellamack has been one deception after another and, of course, the Leader of Government Business was very twitchy about the use of the word ‘deception’; the Leader of Government Business is twitchy at any word at all that is critical of this government, particularly this particular Treasurer. This Treasurer simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and it even impacts on this House. I will digress briefly to demonstrate how it occurs.
I am going to go through the history of the Legionella issue in this House In October 2007, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure contract for Legionella testing in Northern Territory government buildings in Darwin and Alice Springs was awarded for 12 months at the price of $78 702 …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have not received the motion yet, and I think that is crucial. I am not sure whether the motion mentions Legionella, and I am not sure whether …
Mr Elferink: No, it does not.
Dr BURNS: … and I am not sure how Legionella crept into this particular debate. It is a matter of relevance, Madam Speaker
Mr Elferink: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, have you given a signed copy? Yes, you have. I am looking forward to it.
Mr ELFERINK: Basically, all it says is that she is a liar, and that means I get as much room as I need to call her that and show examples of it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: It does not relate to a specific incident. We can cover …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Whilst this is a censure motion your comments must directly relate to what is in the actual motion. I remind you that all comments must be directed through the Chair and not across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue with the Legionella comments because the motion that you now have before you refers to the lies told by the minister.
I can well understand why the Leader of Government Business wants to interrupt me on these issues, but the fact is that we do not have enough questions asked in Question Time to deal with all the issues we have to deal with. A lie by omission is often as bad, in fact is often worse, than outright lying in its own right.
Getting back to it; the contract was awarded by DPI.
Between June and December 2008, test reports from the testing company showed results of testing conducted
on the water cooling towers in this building;
17 February 2009, Parliament House lost water supply in a cooling tower and an air conditioner shut down.
Parliament House staff took the opportunity to look inside the tower as part of their asset management strategy.
They noticed water flowing over the floor of the tower and no chemical dosing system working. Staff then sought
independent advice.
18 February 2009, Parliament House requested, for the preceding six months, the results which were not
undertaken by a registered microbiology laboratory, and requested DPI for the real reports. Dates of testing were
checked with Security and showed that no one from the contracted company had entered the site during those periods.
19 February 2009, DPI contacted the contractor to explain.
20 February 2009, interim results from an independent test showed very high readings and advised to undergo
decontamination work immediately - that is very high readings of Legionella. Parliament House contacted DPI
to express their dissatisfaction with the contractor;
20 February 2009, the contractor attended to clean the towers and connect a chemical system;
24 February 2009, an independent sampling was taken from the cooling towers;
25 February 2009, Parliament House received microbiological analysis and, Madam Speaker, you were advised at that time;
27 February 2009, Parliament House staff members identified that that person was under instructions not to give out any
information to anyone. The less that is known is the better, it would appear.
What it means is that DPI was in charge of keeping the Legionella issues in this building, was charged with keeping an eye on the air-conditioning systems, which they contracted out. DPI must have known, as a result of the Legionella found in this building, that there was a very high count of Legionella in the air conditioners in this building.
Did the Treasurer and the minister responsible for DPI warn people in this building? No. Why would she not do that? Because she did not want to have to deal with another scandal. She has faced scandal after scandal after scandal. This is the depth to which this Treasurer and minister will dive to avoid her responsibility to protect the people who work in this building - including members and staff of this building. I can tell you now that this is more than despicable conduct by the minister herself. That is the sort of attitude that we are seeing from this minister. Why did she want to avoid it? Because she wanted to avoid another scandal. She is already under the pump over the Bellamack situation and the fact that it is dragging out and dragging out. So, she has this other problem and does not want to deal with it.
However, there is also another issue percolating in the background; that is, the issue of what is now being dubbed ‘chook gate’. This comes down to a habit that we have all too often seen in this building from this government; that is, the habit of when under pressure, when caught out lying, they will immediately, as a minister of this government, hang a public servant out to dry. There are two …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I put a question to you in the last sittings and I asked you whether you were involved with interfering in a court case. Answer? ‘Madam Speaker, no’. She went on to say: ‘Following my legal advice I decided to make no direction to my department regarding this case’. Juxtapose that with an e-mail from Richard Hancock that said: ‘The minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’. Those two statements cannot be in any way reconciled - in any way reconciled - unless one of the two people who uttered those statements were lying.
What evidence do we have to demonstrate it was, in this case, the minister who was lying and not the departmental CEO? I point to a little history. We have seen several ministers stand up in this place, not least of which was the former Minister for Health who has seen fit to blame public servants repeatedly for the failings in the department he formerly had carriage of. On each instance, he said: ‘I was misled. I was not informed’. How many public servants were sacked? None. Do you know why that is? These public servants are not sacked because they are faithful and loyal public servants who do their job. I can tell you, if I was being lied to by my CEO, I would fire them. However, is Mr Hancock fired? No, he is not, because I believe him to be a loyal and faithful CEO. ‘The minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’. Is he still employed as the CEO of the department? My word he is, because this government knows full well the size of the unfair dismissal case and breach of contract case that would be coming their way if they actually did what logic dictates.
The only reason he is still in that job is that when he says: ‘the minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’, that statement is true. He was, of course, somewhat nervous about this instruction. He prepared a letter for the signature of the minister, and this letter went to the minister; the text of this letter was an instruction, and that instruction was: to please instruct me to fulfil what you told me to do verbally. The Treasurer said: ‘No, I am not going to write that out. I am not going to sign that.’ It was after he took that action that he then put out that e-mail. Why would that CEO make that decision? For a very simple reason: he knows this government has form for hanging public servants out to dry when those ministers get caught in their own webs of deception.
So, he thinks to himself: my goodness gracious me, what am I going to do? This, by the way, is speculation on my part, but I think it is well founded speculation. He then writes an e-mail and circulates it widely, I suspect, to as many people as he can reasonably justify sending it to. He has gone into what is colloquially known in the public service as CYA mode - cover your backside mode. Why would he do that? Because he knows that despite the fact that he has acted as a faithful and loyal public servant, without fear or favour, he is going to be the man who is going to cop it in the neck. And, sure as eggs, the question gets asked in parliament, up stands the minister and says: ‘I decided to make no direction to my department regarding this case’. That was a lie and misleading of this House - a clear attempt to foist responsibility off her own shoulders.
The fact is, if what she said was true, she would have fired Mr Hancock and not put up with the fact that Mr Hancock had verballed her; but Mr Hancock had not. The only thing that occurred was that Mr Hancock realised he needed to cover his position, and did so in a smart way. However, what is clear from that is that he was instructed. The minister likes to refer to some notes and say: ‘Oh look, I will walk in there and I would be willing to exert my powers if you do not do what you are told’.
Ms Lawrie: I did not have to.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, why did you not? The fact is you actually did exert your powers. You did the exact thing of holding a gun to his head and saying: ‘If you do not do what I say I am going to pull the trigger anyway’.
Dr BURNS: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. If you would not mind, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. She put a gun to her CEO’s head and said: ‘If you do not do what I am telling you to do, I am going to pull the trigger anyway’. That is a form of coercion. It is an instruction by that or any other means - a rose is a rose. The fact is that this minister fibbed to this parliament, lied to this parliament and, as a consequence of lying to this parliament, she then had to find some nice little weasel words to try to squeak her way through this particular issue and manoeuvre herself in such a way that she had a justifiable and defendable position.
Well, Madam Speaker, it does not wash out there. People simply do not believe it. People talk to me about these issues. They have mentioned this inconsistency between departmental CEO and the minister, and guess what, Madam Speaker? They do not believe her either. They simply do not believe the Treasurer. They see her lips moving and they are thinking to themselves: ‘That cannot be true, can it?’
We also have this little slippery exercise we have seen the minister go through as the Treasurer: the process of making public announcements about the position of the budget. This is also a profound area of irresponsibility on the part of this Treasurer. For the first time today I actually heard her make a little disclaimer at the end of one of her comments. The little disclaimer was this: ‘Oh, and by the way, it might get worse still’, after relying on some numbers that Treasury provided. The important part about that little disclaimer at the end of the answer was she now knows, or has come to understand, she is actually in charge of Treasury. Whilst Treasury is full of very professional people who carefully monitor information as it comes to hand, the fact is the pronouncements she makes, not Treasury staff, but this minister makes, are the pronouncements upon which people make judgments - judgments which involve tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment. That is how seriously people should take what Treasurers say.
How is it conceivably possible that a minister can be advised in advance by the federal government of a deteriorating situation, and slavishly adhere to numbers she must know are wrong? That is why I put question three into this pack, because I fully expected when I asked her about the budget deficit that she would say: ‘Yes, it is the global financial crisis, and it is a moving feast’. The fact is that the feast was moving before you were making some of your pronouncements and that is when you slip away from gloss and you move into the area of deception and lies.
Predictably, when I asked the question, I said: ‘Yes, I knew you were going to blame the global financial crisis’. The Commonwealth’s mid-year report was released on 5 November 2008 - 20 days before the Treasurer claimed there was going to be a surplus in the 2009-10 budget. You cannot tell me, and I would not believe the assertion the Treasurer is making, that having been informed for 20 days that the situation was deteriorating to the point where there was going to be a massive drop in the financial position of the Northern Territory, that you could still assert figures from earlier paperwork.
Why would this be? Because the minister is so locked into a position of spinning and presenting for presentation purposes and all those types of things she has to do - the position of the Northern Territory as the place to come to - she was so busy doing all that, she forgot to tell the truth. The truth was that 20 days earlier, before she made those statements, the federal Treasurer had detailed the complete collapse of federal revenues in the 2009-10 financial year, and that collapse made a large deficit in the Territory inevitable.
The Treasurer would have been well aware of what is in the 2009 CGC update, and that process of deception is still continuing today. I will return to that particular issue in the next day or so. But the lies which are coming out from this Treasurer in terms of dressing up the economy of the Northern Territory for political gain only, is just shocking.
In - was it October 2008? - this Treasurer was producing a mid-year report saying that we would not be in deficit in 2009-10 – in 2008. That was well after the global financial crisis was known about and was being tracked by her Treasury as well as other Treasuries around the nation and around the world. And those Treasuries talk to each other - we know that from intergovernmental agreements. Despite that, she consistently continued to stick to that assertion until such time, in spite of the lies and deceptions in relation to the fiscal position of the Northern Territory, she finally admitted that we were heading for a whopper of a problem in 2009-10. How did she tell Territorians? She buried the fact near the bottom of the media release she put out.
Heading to a budget deficit of $150m which, I believe is now bordering on the wildly ambitious, she has simply been taking a position of deception when dealing with these particular issues, and she continues to take a position of deception when dealing with these particular issues.
The fact is she is now being caught red-handed. And she is quite right in one respect. I heard her say: ‘What is happening here today is all a plan to demonstrate I am deceptive and that is going to be your vehicle to run down the budget’. Essentially, that is actually correct - she is deceptive and Territorians need to know that she is deceptive because she is going to bring down a budget next week. And, if it is anything like previous budgets it is almost going to be an unreliable document in terms of some of the things which are contained in it.
The state of the mid-year report and now are miles apart, and it is not because they did not know it was coming. She knew it was coming. She even knows more pain is coming but she is still not factoring those things into the paperwork she is issuing in her name. She has just said she knows worse times are coming. So if she knows that it is bad, and worse is coming, why is that not being factored into the budget? The reason is because she has a propensity not to tell the truth when it comes to these particular issues.
This Treasurer and this minister for Planning has nothing other than deceit as a vehicle for communicating with Territorians. She chose to do it over Bellamack, and continues to choose to do it over Bellamack. She chose to do it over budget statements and budget documents, and continues to do it over budget statements and budget documents. She chose to do it over ‘chook gate’, where she was caught with her hand in the till, so to speak, and …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong! Wrong! And that is sick and that is misleading parliament
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you are welcome to bring on a motion. Come on.
Ms Lawrie: You think you can just lie on the record.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion is about her telling lies. I strenuously object to her use of that word.
Ms Lawrie: Well, you stop it. You stop lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. Minister, if you would withdraw those comments. Member for Port Darwin, nothing in this motion refers to putting a hand in the till, which is quite a different allegation. I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw ‘hand in the till’. She was caught red-handed …
Ms Lawrie: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … and she was caught red-handed about being deceptive, and that is just her form; that is the way she operates, sadly. She has been able to get away with it for a little while but, the fact is, the chickens - no pun intended - are coming home to roost.
Madam Speaker, the position of this minister has been to use deception as her vehicle of communication. As I said at the outset of my comments today, this minister has been caught lying in relation to Bellamack, about our budgetary position, about her role in the ‘chook gate’ affair, and there are other issues that still have to come out of ‘chook gate’, about the connections between Red Rooster and who owns it, and the Labor Party. All those things are still to wash out of this whole process.
This is the person who is in charge of our budget. A budget of some $4bn if you include the NPs, and this person cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed.
I often wonder to myself when I hear the level of bitterness and antipathy between herself and the former member for Barkly on this and other issues, how the member for Barkly, a fellow of esteem and high integrity, would be moved to make such observations about this Treasurer. I suspect that the relationship she managed with him, personally, was not entirely unlike the relationship she manages with the rest of the Territory community. That animosity between those two is only demonstrative of this particular minister’s attitude towards the truth.
To deny that she read Elliot McAdam’s e-mail is just incomprehensible; it cannot be true. ‘Oh, he is a fool; I do not want to talk to him. I am not going to read his e-mails’. That is just not believable. To say: ‘I was not involved in a paper trail, I did not read his e-mail’, is just a lie. There is no other word. I know the Leader of Government Business is all bent out of shape about using the word ‘deception’, but there is no other word. I checked my thesaurus before I came for words that come close, other than ‘deception’ and ‘lies’, to deal with the conduct of this particular Treasurer and minister.
I just cannot comprehend how members opposite can continue, in the face of overwhelming and damning evidence, to sit beside her and support her in continuing this behaviour because eventually the radioactivity this particular minister is emanating into the public arena will cause an anaemic drain on her colleagues. Whilst they continue to cuddle up to her radioactive self, the results will mean they will also become radioactive in the eyes of the voting public.
The lies that have been told by this minister are clearly evidenced by paper trails, by e-mails in which CEOs – fine, upstanding, reputable public servants - say to their colleagues, and whoever else received them, that they had been verbally instructed. She chose to stand up in this House and tell Territorians a lie.
Madam Speaker, that alone should condemn her, let alone all the other lies she has told and continues to perpetrate on the people of Northern Territory and this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I know that the stated ambition of the Country Liberal Party is to attack individually your good self and ministers of this government - ruthlessly attack, callously attack - in the hope that one of us will weaken under the unprecedented nasty and personal nature of the attacks which we have been enduring since the 2008 elections, hoping one of us will just say: ‘Enough is enough. I love my job, I love doing my job but, really, it is beyond the pale’. This member is just going to keep on copping the attacks from the opposition because I put my hand up to enter parliament and parliamentary public life knowing just how nasty and how wrong it gets.
I saw attack after attack on my mother in the parliament when she was one of two Independents, who were the only members of opposition when it was a 19-member parliament, and all the others were CLP and they were arrogant, but they were particularly bullying towards her as a woman. I have noticed a trend with the latest crop here and the way they behave towards women parliamentarians, particularly.
I know that holding the positions I hold in this government makes me a target for them. I am a very big, walking, moving, everyday target for the opposition. Why? I am the Deputy Chief Minister: ‘Go after the Deputy Chief Minister, try to bring her down, try to discredit the government’. I am also the Treasurer: ‘Go after the Treasurer, try to bring her down, and try to discredit this government’, particularly discredit this government where it is very strong and that is in the area of economic delivery for a prosperous Territory. So it is particularly important to go after the Treasurer of this particular government.
I am also the Minister for Planning and Lands and the Minister for Infrastructure. With those portfolios, when you know them well, you know there are 101 things everyday in the portfolios that are difficult, that are challenging, particularly in the area of Planning. One person will like a planning proposal; another person will hate the planning proposal. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t everyday in the portfolios of Planning and Lands and Infrastructure.
That being said, I like the portfolios that I carry for this government, just as I have loved every portfolio I have carried for this government. Why? Because I entered this parliament in 2001 wanting to make a difference for Territorians, and wanting to serve Territorians because it was bred into me. I resisted it most of my life, but it was bred into me; it was bred into care about individual Territorians, their lives, their struggles, how you could improve their lives, but also, collectively, the community and groups of the Territory, whether they are in urban areas, regional areas, or remote areas of the Territory. You cannot get away from the way you were raised, and that was the way I was raised.
The other thing that I find particularly offensive about this today is that it is simply about lying; it does not go to particular issues which they may have a view about, what they think I did was right or wrong and how I went about it. It is simply around me lying to this House and lying to Territorians. It is as broad as that. That is absurd; it simply goes to character and character only. So in debating this, I have to debate my own character. Now, we are not all necessarily good at holding the mirror up to oneself and asking: ‘What is at the core of you as a person? What is your character?’ It harps back to after I was elected - and I know what politics is like - and I kept thinking: why would I do that to myself when I saw what my mother had to put up with? Regardless, I could not resist the urge to work for Territorians, to make this a better place to live and to really respond to the struggles of the people who struggle the most and change their lives in a better way, in any way I possibly could.
When I did get into parliament, I remember having a conversation with my now ex-husband. I was hanging out the clothes at about 11.30 at night, and I said to him: ‘Why on earth am I doing this? It is horrible, it is frustrating. Will I be able to achieve change and improvement in people’s lives? He said: ‘At the end of the day, whenever you do leave parliament, as long as you leave with your integrity intact then you have done the right thing’. I have never forgotten that. They were very wise words and very appropriate words.
I was raised by a woman of enormous integrity, known for her integrity, still known for her integrity right throughout the Territory. I have the pleasure now of being Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, and whilst it is a new portfolio area for me and I am still learning it, and will continue to learn it everyday I hold it, I do not doubt I was very strongly influenced as a child by the late Dick Ward. I sat by him as he underwent dialysis at home in Rapid Creek, and he talked to me about justice and about how to treat people.
So, with very strong influences in my life, including the late Barbara James, fundamentally at the core of me is this inability to just bald-faced lie. I cannot do it; I am actually hopeless at it.
Obviously, in circumstances in your life you have to find situations where you know to tell someone something outright, and here I am talking about personal circumstances, not professional circumstances. I will not lie in professional circumstances. But, in personal circumstances you do not want to hurt someone personally over something you know is happening to them in their life, for example, if their boyfriend is playing up on them, that sort of thing, so you tell them what are half truths, hints at what is occurring without being the one who has to pass on the bad message. That is personal life, not professional. Professionally, from the day I started work, I pursued my chosen careers with integrity. You cannot take your breeding out of you.
I also have a culture. Everyone has their own particular culture. I happen to be Jewish and in my culture we happen to be argumentative, we happen to be characters, we happen to be fairly colourful. We have an interest in finances so the Treasury portfolio is not such a strange one for me. However, I balance the challenging aspects of my Judaism culturally in me with a religion I learned from my mother and I have pursued all of my life, from about the age of six, which is Buddhism. The fundamental tenets of that is honesty and going about what you do in a very honest way. I cannot take those elements out of me and nor will I, not for any job, not for any purpose, not for any time; to the core of me, that is me.
I have to say that it gets me into trouble often, particularly professionally. I can be at a meeting with very influential and important business people, but I will to their face, eyeball them and tell them honestly why what they are proposing will not wash. I am known out there, I have a reputation out there, for being tough, sometimes uncompromising but, above all, they know I am forthright. They know when they walk in the door they will get an honest response from me about where the government is at and what the read is. That is what I do - every single day.
This particular political stunt by the opposition, I read it for what it is: I know it is yet another attack. I know the timing of it. I called it in Question Time before they did it. Why? I have known it has been coming for days. I have been around politics since I was five. Do not treat me like the babe in the woods. Do not underestimate that aspect.
I see it for what it is. They censured the previous Treasurer of a Labor government prior to handing down the budget. They try to do that because they have to destroy the credibility of the individual, who is the Treasurer, because they are doing the most important task you can do each year in the government - hand down the budget. They like to present me as someone who somehow plays with the figures.
Well I do not, and I never would. To me that is absolutely abhorrent. To me that is also an insult to the fine staff of Treasury who I listen to and learn from; listen to very closely and learn from every single day I am the Treasurer. I will continue to learn from them every single day I remain the Treasurer of the Territory. I hope I remain the Territory Treasurer for a good length of time, because I can see and can chart the path. I am strong enough to ensure discipline in my own team and we will make the tough decisions and follow through the tough decisions. Why? For the betterment of the Territory and the best outcomes for Territorians. Tough decisions protect Territorians now and lay the foundations for the strength of their future as well. I am not going anywhere. I was born here, I was raised here, this is my country; I will die here.
The aspersions and the flights of fancy cast by the member for Port Darwin are wrong. Everything he said in that debate was wrong. It was offensive and parts of it were abhorrent to me. Fundamentally, in everything he said, in every aspersion he made, he was wrong.
I tend not to play the petty politics they play because I do not like it. I do not agree with it. I tend to get on with the job and concentrate on getting the job done because there is plenty to get done in a developing jurisdiction like the Territory.
In the area of the November figures which are used in the mid-year report, on page 8 it states that we took these figures from the Commonwealth’s mid-year report – the MYEFO figures. We actually explain in the mid-year report where those figures came from, and yet he likes to present it as if we were ignoring the latest figures. Well, that is wrong. The mid-year report explained where the figures came from.
We keep revising our figures downwards and I have said we will keep revising our figures downwards because the Commonwealth continues to revise the GST revenue downwards. It is not of our making. I wish I was the Treasurer in the good times not the tough times, but I am the Treasurer in the tough times, and I will be tough and I will make the tough decisions to protect the Territory, to protect Territorians and to protect jobs. Every state and territory Treasurer, together with the federal Treasurer, has been revising their estimates downwards. I have publicly announced each time I have received the latest revised figures. I have not delayed and, in the pack of Treasurers I have tended to be the first, second or third out the door with those revisions. I have not been at the back of the pack; I have been up the front of the pack getting out there as soon as possible.
I believe I was the first to say ‘deficit’. No one wanted to, no Treasurer wanted to, but I went out at the front of the pack and said we will have to go into deficit because we want to protect Territory jobs, and these GST revisions are driving us into deficit. It is no easy task, I have to say, when we have had six surpluses in a row under Labor Treasurers.
In terms of Legionella, the member for Port Darwin is clearly and wilfully misinterpreting the issue. The facts are that the Parliament House water supply was interrupted on 18 February 2009 and the cooling towers were emptied. I am advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure understands the cooling towers were filled with town water and agitation of the biofilm, that is the sludge, prior to sampling may have led – may - have led to higher than normal readings. Immediate cleaning and decontamination was implemented.
Testing through an approved laboratory has been ongoing at regular periods as defined in Australian Standards to ensure bacteria is at an acceptable standard, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Construction Division will continue to monitor the water quality at a higher frequency than that required by the Australian Standards to ensure the situation remains under control.
Madam Speaker, there was an accusation of lying by omission. I was sitting here listening to him flinging around the issue of Legionella and I thought: ‘I have not made any comments about Legionella. Why would I have been accused of lying when I actually have not said anything about Legionella?’ I have been monitoring …
Mr Mills: That is the point.
Ms LAWRIE: I have been monitoring the situation. I have been getting regular updates.
Mr Mills. You did not say a thing, and you hid it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I have been getting regular updates and briefings from my department, quite appropriately, but, Madam Speaker, I know you as the person responsible for Parliament House and the building, have been very open and frank. I know you wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mills, on 24 April in regard to the Legionella issue. I table that letter. This lying by omission is completely absurd. You, quite appropriately, as the Speaker of the Assembly had carriage of the matter and I know that all my department officials have been having meetings; I have been monitoring it as the minister for DPI, who has the Construction Division sitting underneath me.
In terms of Red Rooster, the first point I want to make is that it was the Department of Planning and Infrastructure which withdrew the Red Rooster prosecution after I raised very serious and legitimate concerns about the fairness of continuing a prosecution when the individual involved had subsequently obtained an occupancy permit, and when there were others who had not.
The opposition’s feigned outrage would be more convincing if one of its own members, the member for Katherine, had not already pointed out in a letter to the former Attorney-General the basic issue of fairness involved here and, as the member for Katherine implored the government to cease this prosecution, at least he seems to understand the need to take a wider perspective and do everything possible to help building owners in our regions comply with certification.
It seemed to be easier instead for the opposition to try to snare a cheap headline, and they seem to have quite a low opinion of our commercial construction industry and appear willing to trample all over the professionalism of Territory certifiers for the chance of a headline.
The government will act quickly on any building assessed as unsafe. It is not a safety issue even though they have been scaremongering and trying to say it is. The government is genuinely working to improve certification processes and raise certification rates. They do not like being reminded that there is failure in the system which dates back to 1993 when the certification industry was privatised. Territory certifiers are hard-working and professional. They have been busy trying to service our regional areas in strong economic times and when there has been a boom in our urban centres, particularly Darwin and Palmerston.
I went at length through the issue of what we are going to do during Question Time – and they kept interjecting - putting monitoring in place is about being fair and reasonable; working collaboratively with building owners and the certifiers and facilitating the certification outcomes we are seeking; bringing in an independent team from Queensland to put a fresh set of eyes across what we do and how we do it here in the Territory; putting together a government task force to ensure all government compliance occurs; providing subsidies for certifiers to travel to the regional areas to pursue compliance and, importantly for the industry, providing a cadetship program to build the Territory’s own skills base.
What we see is the government and I, as minister, going through the issues, pursuing the issues and saying: ‘How do we best approach all this?’ We want to work with the industry; we are not going to lock horns with the industry. I know the CLP tried to set this up as something we were going to overreact on and run around prosecuting everyone. But we did not quite play into their little game plan and it has upset them, which is why they cannot seem to let it go. They tried to set it up so we would race off into prosecutions willy-nilly and pick on Territory small- and medium-sized business enterprises and the strong, nasty arm of government would come crashing down on people’s heads.
It did not happen like that because I take a fair and reasonable approach to the way I oversight the work of my department. It is a test when issues come across my desk with a whole lot of challenges in them: what is fair and what is reasonable in the approach?
Regarding the issue of I must be lying because in the e-mail my CEO, Richard Hancock, sent around he said I had instructed the prosecution to cease and, therefore, I must be lying to saying that I did not. It is as clear and simple as this: I was willing to instruct, I made that clear; I was willing to direct if I had to. I eyeballed my team and I said: ‘If I have to, I will. I do not believe I should have to. If the senior members of administration in government have a look at this issue they will see the unfairness of the situation which has emerged, that is, one being pursued who is compliant in a prosecution, while there are others non-compliant’.
The minutes reflect that I said I was willing to. If Richard took away the impression that I had absolutely instructed, I do not have an issue with that. Impression or no impression, I do not have an issue with that, which is why I did not sack him, as the member for Port Darwin said he would sack a CEO if they did that wilfully. That is a wrong approach. If he saw my willingness to instruct as instruct, I do not have an issue with that.
What is the outcome I was seeking? The outcome I was seeking was that one person was not prosecuted when others were non-compliant. What is the outcome I was seeking? That we seek compliance in the Territory; that is the goal; that is the outcome. What is the pathway and how to do it has been something I have been working on with my senior management at DPI. I genuinely believe we have come up with a good response regarding the Queensland review team, the cadet programs, the subsidies for certifiers, getting certifiers to work on government certification, and putting together the task force between the Department of Business and Employment and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
It is not going to be without costs to government. There are resource issues contained within the Queensland team report and there will be resource issues contained with certification compliance. There are resource issues in subsidising certifiers to go out. But is it the right thing to do to get buildings compliant? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to do to look at changing legislation to improve the compliance system? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to do to consult with industry regarding their views? Absolutely, it is the right thing to do.
I did not walk into the little trap the CLP laid regarding building certification. The trap and snare did not bite me because I saw it coming; I saw what they were up to. They wanted us to come down and smash and crash and bash our way through hard-working, small business people and hard-working business owners of the Territory. Well, we were not doing that. That is no good end.
We had a debate in this parliament about the difference between litigation and mediation. I am a fan of mediation - let us sit down and try to work it out in a fair and reasonable way. Nothing is served by ridiculous prosecutions if they can be avoided. However, if prosecution has to occur, then, it has to occur. Bearing in mind I was not the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General at the time these decisions were made, even though the member for Port Darwin tried to present - mislead - that I was. He misleads so regularly that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled yourself that the term ‘misleading’ must be done by substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, I withdraw.
Mr Elferink: I am not the subject of a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has withdrawn.
Ms LAWRIE: He has so many flights of fancy all the time that people are finding it really difficult to believe anything he says now. People are really struggling with it, because he runs off into flights of fancy all the time. I sit here and think: ‘Here is the evidence. No, he is wrong about that’. Then the next flight of fancy comes my way and I respond: ‘Well, here is the evidence, here is the response to that’, and the next flight of fancy comes my way.
I counted three different tacks the member for Port Darwin took over the building certification issue. One attack was: I was the Attorney-General and I interfered and abused my powers to stop the prosecution. That was wrong. No, I was not the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. Yes, I was working well within my powers as minister. Ken Parish independently came on radio and said not only did I do the right thing legally and morally, but politically it was the right thing to do.
So the tack switched to cover-up - I was just trying to cover it all up. I was not trying to cover it all up because I had asked for an audit of buildings and I was saying to the media, which was running with this publicly, as they should, yes, I will give you the audit details - no cover up there. I put an independent Queensland team in - no cover up there. So the cover-up conspiracy, fantasy thing was wrong.
The next one was: there was something dastardly going on - I was being levered and manipulated and corruptly working with the former member for Barkly. Well, wrong, simply wrong and I scotched that very easily, very quickly, because it was wrong.
So the three different tacks and flights of fancy were all proven to be absolutely wrong in the area of building certification. What was being done at the time, the action, was carefully and considerately working through the issue, which is the way I approach my work.
In terms of Bellamack, the hardest thing in construction, particularly in turning off massive construction projects like a subdivision, is hitting the time lines. They should have used examples of me publicly talking about dates for Berrimah Farm because they are even worse - much worse - than Bellamack in when we are finally going to achieve turn-off at Berrimah Farm. Those dates have blown way out.
With Bellamack we are on a tight time line, but we hitting the key markers that we need to hit in delivering land in 2009. Anyone who is involved in negotiations with a multimillion dollar project would know that there are teams of lawyers involved, the paperwork goes to and from, and ministers have to be absolutely nowhere near it. We are the worst people to have anywhere near something as sensitive and delicate as that. You get a good team of negotiators and you let them do their job. You keep prompting them, you getting briefings and you keep up-to-date on it. I get briefed on Bellamack several times a week, almost on a daily basis, prompting and nudging the negotiating team to get the result. And it is extremely close - documents being exchanged by lawyers - extremely close.
Meanwhile, running in parallel to those negotiations to fast-track it, and this is where the fast-tracking comes in, which is a big punt to take to fast-track it, so without the final signature we are running the design and planning processes in parallel. The designs are done; planning processes have Stage 1 approval from the Development Consent Authority. This is all designed to create that fast-track turn-off of lots because if we waited for final signatures on final documents you would then be starting your design, you would then be starting your planning processes, and you would then be delaying the project. So we are taking a punt and running those processes in parallel to fast-track it. The public needs more land turned off in the Territory and that is why we are also running Johnston at the same time, in terms of design processes, and that is proceeding very well.
I am also negotiating with a whole range of people across the Territory in terms of land subdivisions. I believe it is better for us to have more subdivisions out there and competition in the marketplace than be focusing on just one, which is Bellamack. So there is a whole lot of other work I am doing with other bodies in negotiating major subdivisions.
Madam Speaker, I answered the issues on Bellamack publicly, articulating them clearly; answered the issues on Legionella; and answered the issues on the revisions in terms of the GST and the budget, and it is going to be a tough budget to hand down next week. It is not going to be an easy day at all because it is a tough economic time in the nation and, whilst we are tracking better than most, it is the toughest budget to frame in the history of the Territory since self-government …
Ms Purick: Squandered all the money.
Ms LAWRIE: … when you have GST revenues dropping away.
I will pick up on the ridiculous interjection from the member for Goyder. We have received just above the guaranteed minimum amount we would have received in payments from the Commonwealth if the GST had not been in place. We have received just above the guaranteed minimum amount. What we have done in that time is delivered six surpluses in a row to drive down the debt that we inherited from the CLP. We have also delivered record budgets, record additional spending in the critical areas that needed it: health, education, law and order, and infrastructure. We have spent more than $1.8bn in GST in the expenditure increases we have had across all those key areas. Just this year alone 2008-09, we have an $870m infrastructure program …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … $1.8bn in additional GST revenue. We have spent more than that in increasing the health budget, increasing the education budget, increasing the police budget, putting services in the bush for the first time, where they failed before. Just in the child protection budget alone, more than a threefold increase from $8m to $60m when I was minister at the time.
This is nothing but a political stunt, one that I was able to call halfway through. They like to censure the Treasurer of a Labor government before a budget - that is what this is about. I am not lying to Territorians. I would not do this job if I had to lie to Territorians. I am not ever going to lie to this parliament because I respect this parliament. I have grown up knowing the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Territory; I will never lie to this parliament.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, that was the most unbounded assortment of gratuitous untruths I have ever heard. This minister has an appalling track record when it comes to managing the finances and the planning and infrastructure development of the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, has spoken about the suburb, or would-be suburb, of Bellamack or Bellamite - it was Bellamidgy - being on the market early this year. We know that the tender documents have not been signed because the unsuccessful tenderers have not been debriefed yet. We know that the lots have not been surveyed which means those parcels of land are unlikely to be on the commercial market before the end of this year. That is going to push us over into next year and continuously this minister gets up and says that Bellamack is on track, which we dispute.
We then move to the suburb of Johnson, which is going to provide about 850 blocks, supposedly also in late 2009. We do not even have Bellamack in the process of being developed, and we are being told we are going to have Johnson by the end of 2009. I do not believe we can believe anything this minister says in regards to release of land.
It is because of their strangulation on the release of land that we have the problem with affordable housing. It is partially the reason we have high rents, and partially the reason why we have high prices for housing. It is a big reason why we are unable to keep many of our professional people in the Territory, notably our teachers and our nurses because they just cannot find accommodation - houses, units, or duplexes - that is affordable, so they pack up and they leave the Northern Territory.
In regards to planning, this minister has a track record for not giving correct information to this parliament, nor giving correct information to the people of the Northern Territory. In October 2007, the Chief Minister of the day, Clare Martin, said they were going to release land in Berrimah, resulting in new dwellings on a 220 ha site. Nothing has actually happened on that site, and I will tell you why.
In this media release dated 8 October 2007, they state Berrimah was going to complement the government’s release of land at Bellamack. We have not even got Bellamack close to coming online, and yet they were talking about bringing Berrimah online. They are saying, and I quote from the press statement:
What the minister did not tell people is that this site is contaminated; was contaminated for a long period of time, was a site used during World War II, and had dumps on it. Interestingly, that was in October 2007 and we still to this day do not have any information from this government regarding the studies they had to undertake to find out if this site is actually safe for residential development.
In September 2008, the minister says: ‘We know the land has been used for things like herbicide experiments and also the preservation of timber logs’. If they knew that, why did they announce it as a residential development? Why did they not do the work beforehand? I will tell you why: they just did not know because they just did not plan. It was a knee-jerk reaction. I can remember the day of that announcement specifically being a Monday. There were comments in the media early in the morning in regard to the lack of land, the lack of land release, the lack of affordable land for Territorians; by that afternoon, we had the announcement by the then Chief Minister that they were going to chop up Berrimah farm.
They said they were going to do soil testing and will receive a report on the extent of what they find. ‘So, if you like’, quote from the minister, ‘it is like a voyage of discovery at the moment’. I do not believe we should take any comfort in that. I do not believe Territorians should take any comfort in that. Quite honestly, I do not believe Territorians or anyone else for that matter if, and we hope it does not, it ever turns into a housing estate that people should live there.
About that same time, this government, with great fanfare, announced that there was going to be a new Harbour Town shopping development, saying that this was going to be a great development in the Berrimah area. It was only a few weeks ago that we heard Harbour Town was not happening. So, there is nothing that we can trust in this minister or this government. One time they say something is going to happen, and then not long after we find out it is not happening at all.
They also are not very good; the minister is not very good with her figures in regard to the finances of the Northern Territory. I draw your attention to earlier this year when the Treasurer said we possibly would get a $200m package from the federal government for new infrastructure in the Northern Territory. Did not know how much, not known what it was going to be for, but we might get $200m. Some time later, in March 2009, a month later, the same minister, the Treasurer, said the stimulus package will result in a total of approximately $500m flowing to the Territory and it would boost our infrastructure. Then, not so long after that, we had the Chief Minister saying it is possibly going to be $450m.
I really do not think this government, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, really know how much money we are getting from the Commonwealth; they do not know where they are going to spend it; they cannot even get their facts and figures straight and in line. Quite honestly, if they cannot manage the money we get from the Commonwealth, and they do not even know how much we are getting, how can we trust them to handle the budget they are supposedly bringing down next week?
In regard to money from the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government and the minister, the Treasurer, claims that her government will invest $100m towards the port expansion over the next three years. Where is that money going to come from? Where are they going to get this $100m? Then they are seeking a further $200m from Infrastructure Australia. Where is the justification for that? Where is their quantification? Why is it $200m? Where are the sums that tell them that this all they will need? They have a good track record, or some would say an appalling track record, for managing the finances. We know that many of their projects are well over run in regard to their budget.
I put to you, Madam Speaker, and to this House, that I do not think this minister for Infrastructure and Planning really knows how much money is required to develop our port facilities into the near future.
I turn my attention now to another issue where the Treasurer and the minister has misled this House and misled Territorians. In October 2008, the minister said:
Well, blow me down dead! On 10 March, TIO headlines: ‘Shuts up shops, blames crisis’. TIO put off 20 staff and closed two branches, one in the rural area and one in the northern suburbs. Yet, four or five months before, the minister was saying TIO is fine. This is the government’s company; this is something that the Treasurer oversees. It is something she should be well versed in and getting consistent briefings. How is it that in a short period of time, from October through to March, we have our Territory Insurance Office putting off staff, shutting branches, cutting back services, cutting back their credit card facilities, and they are trying to get people to use the Internet and telephone more so they can cope with the situation. Really, this shows to me and to our side that this minister, this Treasurer, really does not know what she is doing; she is not in touch with business or with industry.
I will give you another glaring example. This government is good at fudging figures. In January 2009, record motor vehicle sales; new vehicle sales are a good indicator of how an economy is going and the government frequently trots out figures of the new car sales. What they do not tell us, or the public, is it is not exactly new car sales with Territorians going to a car yard and buying a car. What happens is rental companies bring in their new hire fleet from interstate, register them in the Northern Territory with the Motor Vehicle Registry – they are not bought here – and they are then claimed as new car sales. They have consistently done this. This Treasurer does it, her predecessor did it. It is distorting the figures. It is incompetence on their behalf to mislead this House and Territorians as to how new vehicle sales are tracking or not tracking. These are media statements and comments issued by this Treasurer; they are misleading, and they are not true.
The other area I would like to touch on in regard to this minister’s appalling track record when it comes to planning, following on from the Berrimah Farm proposal to turn it into a housing estate on a toxic piece of land, is that they woke up one day and suddenly realised there was a gaol located right next door to a proposed development. That is when they decided: Oops, this not very good, we better move the gaol. They said they would locate it on a site away from residences; they said it would be appropriate. We are yet to find what the list of sites is they looked at and studied. Then, without any consultation with the Litchfield Shire Council - not one telephone call to the President or to the operational head - the government announced it will put the new gaol at Noonamah, right next door to the proposed development of Weddell. There was no consultation with local residents, there are no plans on display, and there has been no information. The minister for Planning had one or two meetings with residents who live within 2 km who have a private airfield and a private airstrip.
The minister said on radio that she did not say at any time to the people at that meeting that the government could compulsorily acquire their land. I have had meetings with those people, and they have told me firsthand that the minister did say compulsory acquisition is an option. She knows she said that, because I have had a meeting with those people …
Ms Lawrie: No. I said it is not what we would do.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: I have had meetings with those people and they are honest, upright, hard-working Territorians. The government should have known there is a private airstrip there. That private airstrip is well documented in the aviation industry. It is outside of controlled air space and is used by the pastoral industry, by flying schools, by gliders, and the recreational industry, and it is used by international aviators who come through Australia. They plot their path of flight well before they leave their home town. For this minister to say to those people who have been out there since the late 1950s and built this strip in the early 1980s, that we might compulsorily acquire your land, because we can …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That is absolutely an inaccurate reflection of what I said at that meeting. She was not at the meeting. She is making it up.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment please, while I confer with the Clerk.
Ms LAWRIE: You know what happened? They asked if we would because the CLP had, and I said no, this is not about compulsory acquisition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, with regard to your point of order, you may approach me afterwards if you wish to put forward a personal explanation.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Putting the gaol there without any consultation even with the local municipality that manages the area is just alarming. It shows appalling planning. They have had no public consultation whatsoever. There are not even proper maps of where they propose to put it. I have two sets of maps that I managed to obtain from government which both show different locations for the Weddell development and where the Noonamah gaol is going to go.
Referring to the private airfield, it employs an enormous number of people, and it generates a lot of employment. I have a meeting next week with a gentleman who wishes to establish an employment program for Indigenous youth to deliver services to the aircraft landing at this field. Every 100 hours, a light aircraft has to come in for a full service and safety check; it is substantial work that takes some days. This airfield does over 350 of these 100 hour jobs each year. That is an enormous amount of work, and an enormous number of people are employed there servicing the aircraft and other associated activities. Now this government just wants to wipe that all out. To me, it shows their complete disregard for anything in the rural area in regard to business and enterprise.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, also spoke about the building certification program and the ‘rooster gate’ affair, and the fact that this minister has scant regard for this serious problem. We had the situation earlier this week where the minister tabled this report and spoke to it for five minutes – five minutes, and then tells us that it is not a safety issue.
I have gone through the report and I believe the methodology is flawed, resulting in a flawed report. We had the consultants in town for two days – two days in Darwin - they did not visit any regional sites, they did not go out of Darwin; so at best it is a desktop study, it is not a proper report. Yet the minister goes on to say: ‘Everything is fine. I have given you a two year moratorium to get your properties up to scratch’. The fact remains, in Tennant Creek alone, 43 non-government assets were not coded, seven residential, 22 sheds, and 14 commercial buildings. There are 19 government buildings in Tennant Creek which house government workers that were not coded and did not have their certification requirements in order.
It alarms me that this Minister for Planning and Lands stands in this House and says it is not a safety issue. I know from personal experience and dealing with the industries, both building and engineering, that certificates of occupation are for two prime reasons: one, the safety of the occupants; and two, the amenity. Yes, it is a certain amount of paperwork, but there are two fundamental things associated with buildings that are of crucial importance in regards to safety - electrical work and plumbing work. As I said before, we do not cast aspersions upon the construction industry, but if something is going to go wrong and does go wrong in those two areas, it can have dire consequences.
It is misleading and basically incorrect to say it does not involve safety at all. I find it alarming that we have someone such as the member for Karama in the very important and serious roles of Treasurer and minister for Planning and Infrastructure; her track record is appalling across all her portfolios. I support the motion my colleague put forward. I urge all Territorians to read this Hansard to see exactly what is going on. It is just appalling.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House now for eight years and seen a number of censure motions and I have been on the end of a few censure motions. This would have to be one of the weakest censure motions I have witnessed in this House. The best censure motion - I am giving the opposition a few tips here, which I probably should not - the best censure motion builds. It builds as Question Time goes on and it gains momentum and the pollie who is in the crosshairs starts to back away a bit and get a bit blowy. Then the coup de grace– the word ‘lie’ or ‘deception’, or whatever you want to say, is uttered. Then the Leader of Government Business usually gets up and says you can only do that by way of substantive motion, and out comes the motion.
What came out here today? It was unlike most censure motions, which are very specific in the case they are prosecuting, very specific indeed. This is quite a general motion. I will read it: I need to suspend so much of standing orders that would prevent me from censuring the acting Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and the member for Karama for lying to this House and lying to Territorians.
There was nothing specified so it left a very wide claim which was prosecuted by the member for Port Darwin. He could go anywhere, basically, and prosecute this ‘lying’ scenario. What really struck me was how initially the case, I will not use the word prosecuted - it was sort of run. It was a very decrepit effort by the member for Goyder. So much so that it had to be wrested out of her hands and given to the member for Port Darwin to actually run the case and be the first speaker on this.
The member for Port Darwin himself admitted this censure motion was a prelude to the budget next week, exactly as the member for Karama and Treasurer said. All you are trying to do is have a lot of smoke and fire and throw some mud, ready for next week so you can interject: ‘You lied, we found last week you lied’ to try to dent the credibility of the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I think the credibility that has really been dented here today is, first, the member for Goyder. I believe there would be members on the other side looking at the member for Goyder – she is a very nice person, a very nice family - but I do not believe she has what it takes to be deputy leader. The role of the deputy leader, hopefully, is a statesman. The deputy leader is …
Mr Tollner: You want to be deputy leader.
Dr BURNS: … someone who really has to be strong and prosecute the case. I do not see that, unfortunately, in the member for Goyder. I talk about …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could you pause, please. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to cease interjecting. I have asked you several times now. Please cease your interjections.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I imagine the other side would be concerned about this because I do not believe the member for Goyder is cutting it. Similarly, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is cutting it, either. I believe what happened here last night and yesterday and, to some extent, today demonstrated that.
This censure has been swirling around in the public arena for sometime now, not really cutting it, recycled today with a few little add-ons. It was mounted at Question Time when we knew the member for Fong Lim had an MPI on what I believe to be a legitimate and important issue - public housing. It is an issue he is very passionate about, and that was pushed back to the very recesses of business today just to try to lift the profile of the member for Goyder; and also, in terms of the member for Port Darwin, to reclaim some of the territory I believe he plainly lost in this place last night.
If I was someone on the other side witnessing what I saw here last night, I would be thinking: ‘Whoa! What is going on here? Does this person know as much as they say they do about parliamentary practice and about political tactics?’ I do not believe so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe the frustrations and the petulance is starting to rise from the other side, and some of the cracks and divisions are starting to become evident. It became evident with the attempted attack on my colleague, the member for Karama, here today.
I was reminded, as the member for Port Darwin spoke, of the words of an old song: ‘What’s it all about, Alfie’. That was what it was all about today and you can only ponder on that old song from the hit parade. What is it all about? It is about trying to reclaim what was lost last night. What became apparent to me as the member for Port Darwin wandered off into the cooling systems of Parliament House - what was that all about …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! As I understand it, you are not allowed to make reference to people when they are outside the Chamber.
A member: It was a metaphor.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member opposite should not have alluded to the member for Port Darwin being out of the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you cannot refer to the absence of a member, but you can refer to a member who may happen to be absent.
Dr BURNS: It was only you who referred to the possible absence of a member, not me. So the member for Port Darwin, metaphorically speaking, was wandering off into the cooling system of Parliament House as he was speaking here, and I thought to myself: what is that all about, Alfie? Once again, this is part of a veiled attack that has been going on, I will politicise it, a veiled attack that has been going against our very competent and able Speaker, you, Madam Speaker. I believe there has been a campaign over this particular issue and on other issues of an attack on you, as the member for Karama pointed out; and a personal attack on her, and I have had personal attacks myself.
What it is all about is trying to wear down. You believe you can wear down government members and we are suddenly going to chuck in the towel and say: ‘That is it. I am walking away. There is going to be a by-election’. Well, I can assure you that each and every one of us is committed to our electorates. We stood last year for a four year term, and we are here for the four year term. We are here through thick and thin for our electorates, primarily, and for the Territory has a whole. So, just forget it, fellows. What you are doing only makes us stronger and that sort of attack only binds us together because we can see this is the CLP of old. This is the way they used to attack people, they used to monster people, they use to try to kick people, and that is one of the reasons they were in power for 27 years.
Much of the debate here today is about deception around financial figures. I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that inquired into matters relating to the CLP’s last budget before they lost office, the 2000-01 budget. What happened was – I believe some members have been around long enough - the then Treasurer, Mr Mike Reed, decided that in an election year he wanted to show increased spending in Health, Education and Police. What he did was wind back the forward estimates of spending so it would look as though they were actually spending more than they did. In fact, they were just spending exactly the same ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What does this have to do with Delia lying?
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. There is no point of order. It is an extremely general censure motion relating to the budget in part.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I am alluding to here is I am not sure whether they do not have a grasp on history, some of them, or they do not know what has happened, but we know what happened with the CLP …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am reading the censure motion now. It is actually about the member for Karama lying to this House, and lying to Territorians. It is not that broad at all, Madam Speaker – it is quite narrow.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to resume your seat. You may not have been listening but there have been many comments regarding the budget in this debate. The minister has the call.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As part of that Public Accounts Committee inquiry we found that …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The references to budgets were budgets carried out by the member for Karama, not previous governments. We are not straying that far from the subject. The subject is the member for Karama lying to this House. The member for Johnston would do well to try to defend, in some manner, the member for Karama.
Mr KNIGHT: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: The previous two members, Port Darwin and Goyder, had strayed extensively beyond the terms of the censure. As a matter of consistency, I would like you to rule against the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The actual censure motion relates only to the member for Karama. However, in putting the motion, the member for Port Darwin spoke about a large number of other things which are completely irrelevant, in many ways, to the motion. I allowed that to happen. Similarly, the member for Goyder also spoke of things not directly related to the motion. That was allowed. The minister responded and spoke about the matters raised by those two members. The minister who now has the call is also speaking about those members and relating them to the motion. Minister, you have the call. Keep it as close as possible to the motion.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the feeling the member for Fong Lim is going to jump again.
Mr Tollner: I thought the minister might be interested in defending the Deputy Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, what I am demonstrating here, and what has already been demonstrated – it is on the public record - is the hypocrisy of members of opposite to accuse our Treasurer for being flexible and showing that flexibility in a global financial crisis, revising budget estimates based on solid data and estimates from the Australian government and what is happening on a worldwide basis. She is working closely with her Treasury officials, in stark contrast to the fiddling of the books by the last CLP government for ‘presentation purposes’, winding back their estimates to hoodwink. Talk about hoodwinking the people of the Northern Territory: what they tried to do, and what they did do, in an election year is pretend they were spending more than they were on their budget, on key areas of Police, Health and Education. It was shown clearly through the evidence that that was the case.
Do not come in here accusing our Treasurer of being dishonest for simply revising - and doing it in a public sense - estimates related to the budget in uncertain financial times. That is patently ridiculous, and I completely reject it. It is all part of this confabulation that you tried to work up here today, pushing what the member of Fong Lim wants to do later today, which is debate a matter of public importance - a very important matter of public importance about housing - basically just pushing it off. I think there are many members on the opposite side who have glass jaws: they can dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it.
Madam Speaker, I was impressed by the Treasurer - I have known her and her mother for a long time now – and the way she reduced this thing to a test of character, and the way she explained her beliefs and her moral code to this parliament. I do not think anyone here could doubt her sincerity or the basis of her beliefs, or the basis of her commitment to this Northern Territory in which she was born, in which she grew up, where she is bringing up her children, and to which she has given many years of public service. She is committed to this Northern Territory, and she demonstrated that in a noble, admirable fashion by what she had to say today. I congratulate her for it, and I am proud to be her colleague.
Much has been made of Bellamack, and whether it is going to meet the time lines, etcetera - it is an important issue, I do not deny that - and the issues of the developments at Berrimah, Johnston and Zuccoli. These are all important issues, but I honestly do not believe that a censure motion is a place to debate these and the details of these. That is a matter, really, for a matter of public importance, or questions during Question Time, or during the budget process, or during Estimates. You will have the opportunity, as I alluded to earlier today, to question the Treasurer and the minister at length, with her public servants and department people sitting beside her during Estimates.
I just believe it was an attempt now of: ‘We have ‘chook gate’’. You see them around the table over there and up on the 4th floor, sitting around saying: ‘Well, we have chook gate but that has sort of run its course in a way. We do not have anything new with chook gate, so we will draw on these other things like the parliamentary cooling system, the air-conditioning system, and Bellamack and Zuccoli, the airport out at Noonamah; anything we can bring in to fill up the time for this censure motion’.
Madam Speaker, it has really shown this is a very, very poor censure motion, indeed.
Let us turn to the major issue, which is chook gate, as it is called, and the Northern Territory building certification system. The minister has made it plain today, and answered the question very directly, that she was prepared to direct the department and the relevant authorities, if necessary, to cease prosecution against that particular business in Tennant Creek. She has also made it plain, and the document that she has tabled makes it plain, that she also said to the department, and really made it clear to them, that she believed that it was wrong to be prosecuting one business, particularly one that I believe had a Certificate of Occupancy issued by that time, when there were probably other businesses and, as we know now, government agencies occupying in Tennant Creek without an adequate Certificate of Occupancy.
As she said, whether Mr Hancock deduced that interchange was somehow a verbal instruction, who knows? But the result is a positive result. Why is the result positive? The charges were dropped against the Red Rooster in Tennant Creek, and that was a result the member for Katherine was also working towards, because he wrote to me, as Attorney-General at that time, requesting that. It was certainly something the CLP wanted to see. Moreover, and more importantly, what we see here, and through this report which was tabled the other day, was there was a range of actions proposed and recommended to try to work through these issues within the certification system.
I know it is a difficult issue. I was the Planning minister for a number of years, and Certificates of Occupancy was an issue then. The reason it was an issue is partly because there has been different legislation which has come on at different times. There were times when the Commonwealth administered the Territory and it did not have any paperwork whatsoever, it just built the buildings and moved on; then you have a whole raft of changes. It has always been a very contentious area. Coupled with the lack of building certifiers, particularly in the more remote regions of the Northern Territory, it becomes a real issue. Government, in the tranche of changes which I brought in as minister, tried to address that by having a two tiered system to recognise there were remote areas and tried to make it flexible.
This report clearly shows there needs to be more action. The minister has promised and undertaken to see that action through, and I commend her for that. We are on the pathway to fixing it; something not recognised by the opposition. This is a minister who is actually working to fix problems in regional Northern Territory, and I commend her for that.
I can find no reason whatsoever to support this censure motion. Madam Speaker, I move the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. First, I commend the minister and his department for bringing this legislation forward. It is important because it will provide a framework to establish the use of geothermal energy in the Northern Territory in a sustainable way that also respects the rights and interests of local people.
In considering this legislation I thought it was important to look into exactly what geothermal energy was. It allowed me to do my own homework and I have heard today many others have done the same, to look at how it would operate within the Northern Territory and why we need it. I understand that some jurisdictions already have similar legislation in place, while others are in the process of putting it together, so it is timely for the Northern Territory to be debating this important legislation.
We also know that some countries have used geothermal energy for some time. We only have to look across the Tasman to New Zealand to see evidence of this. The potential of geothermal energy has long been known. In fact, the word geothermal has Greek origins, as I am sure the minister would know.
Mr Vatskalis: Absolutely.
Ms McCARTHY: It translates to earth and heat. Turning to more contemporary times, it was not until the early 20th century that people started to see its real potential. In looking into geothermal energy more thoroughly, I found there are four different types of geothermal energy – hydrothermal, geo-pressured, hot dry rock, and magma.
In Australia, in particular in the Northern Territory, our geothermal energy would come from hot dry rock. Hot rock technology was developed in the 1970s and has been enhanced considerably in a short period. Hot rock technology drills down into the earth until it reaches a point where the earth is hot enough for the energy to be harnessed. The well that is drilled is generally 3 km or more under the surface. Once the well is created, water is poured down through the naturally hot rock which creates steam which is then turned into energy. Turning water into steam using the earth’s natural energy means that geothermal power is a low-emitting environmental source of energy.
In 2001, the first geothermal exploration licences were issued and there is now a geothermal power plant operating in Birdsville, Queensland. Geothermal energy and technology is rapidly emerging as a potentially viable energy resource. It is believed that the Northern Territory has a huge untapped resource in geothermal energy which could be harnessed to the benefit of Territorians.
I digress here to look at what this could mean for my constituents in Arnhem as we progress in many different areas with housing and education. In the scientific field, this is one area I know there would be many participants very keen to understand and learn more about, given the opportunity. I would like to express to the minister, in his deliberations and in the plans for the future, that there is a considerable effort in encouraging residents in our regions to seriously look at this type of energy, as we do with solar and as we need to do more with wind energy.
Further exploration will help to identify ideal locations for harnessing this energy resource. A real benefit of encouraging this energy resource is it is environmentally friendly, and it is exciting that the Northern Territory is looking forward and encouraging the exploration of a low emission, renewable energy resource.
We all know that climate change is happening, so we know we have to invest in energy projects such as geothermal energy to reduce our emissions. The real benefits of geothermal energy are extremely exciting. In fact, Geoscience Australia estimates if we are able to use 1% of Australia’s geothermal energy, it would generate 26 000 times Australia’s total annual energy consumption. This is a staggering estimation which will go a long way to reduce our carbon emissions.
I was pleased to learn that the Australian government has invested $50m in the geothermal drilling program as part of the $500m Renewable Energy Fund. This funding encourages geothermal exploration throughout Australia as we look for alternative and renewable energy resources. Last year the federal government also launched the Geothermal Industry Development Framework. This framework is encouraging companies to explore and invest in geothermal energy. It is good to see the federal government’s commitment to finding renewable energy resources.
This legislation will facilitate further exploration and possible creation of projects in the Northern Territory. The establishment of geothermal energy in the Northern Territory will bring benefits which not only include a sustainable and renewable energy resource but the creation of jobs. I believe geothermal energy could have huge potential in my electorate of Arnhem. Not only is it a renewable energy resource but it could create additional jobs other than the traditional jobs in our communities, assist in stimulating our local economies, and provide another area of expertise for those who live in our regions who may wish to learn more about it and get themselves interested in it. Our government is focused on ensuring people in the regions are able to tap into jobs, and this is one area that certainly could be of benefit.
As many of you know, I am passionate about growing our own, and geothermal energy projects in my electorate would create local jobs and provide specialised training in this rapidly growing industry. In fact, the Australian government is predicting that the industry will be viable within five years. It is good news for our economy and also for people looking to get into this field of work. As the technology and research in geothermal energy improves, so does the interest in exploring potential projects right here in the Territory.
This legislation will provide an appropriate framework for companies undertaking exploration and eventually tap into our potentially large natural resource. We know that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and what better way to do this but through a low emitting renewable energy source.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I place on the record that this whole idea was a completely new one to me when I came into this parliament. I take this opportunity to commend the member for Nelson for what many of us viewed as banging on about something that was totally new. He has been here for a number of years and has spoken time and time again about this possibility, and it is really good to know more about it and see how the debate has moved on. I take this opportunity to commend the member for Nelson for his leadership and foresight in this matter.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I am not going to go back to explain hot rocks and geothermal. I believe we all understand the geothermal concept. Everyone seems to have done their research. However, I was surprised at the difference in opinion between two members of the opposition We have a member of parliament who says it took too long, we should have brought earlier, and the member for Fong Lim said it was pie-in-the-sky stuff and asked why we need to have this legislation now.
Let me go back. Yes, we announced this in 2006. The problem is this is very new legislation. It was very easy to ask to do some amendments on existing petroleum legislation, like other states did. The problem we have then is, by doing these amendments; we will create more problems than resolving them. It is better to have primary legislation from a brand new industry to address the issues of this industry, rather than trying to make some amendments to patch legislation. That took time, I admit, because the draft bill was circulated to the industry and to the public, and we incorporated all their comments into the legislation. Also, when we brought the legislation to parliament, we realised there were some issues and we wanted to make some amendments. We had to queue up behind a number of other pieces of legislation being drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. So, we had to take time. I am very pleased that we did take time because we now have official legislation that is workable, that meets the needs of the industry, and provides the basis for a new industry in the Territory.
I thank the member for Nelson. I know the member for Nelson went from geothermal and hot rocks to nuclear energy and solar, and probably that is a debate for another time. I acknowledge the member for Nelson is ahead of his time. I agree with him in some areas. I have always been pro-nuclear. Things change, minds change, opinions change but, on purely scientific grounds, if we are going to eliminate or reduce carbon emissions, it does not matter if we use clean coal or gas; the only solution we have is nuclear energy. However, this is a debate for another time.
I will fully support renewable energy. The reality in the Territory with such a small population is we cannot, and will not, have in the immediate future anything other than gas-produced energy, or utilise wind energy or whatever. At the moment the search is on in the Barkly area. The problem in the Barkly is a very small population, no industry to utilise and, of course, solar in combination with diesel or gas generators. The plan of the government is when Blacktip comes online these communities will be converted from diesel to gas.
Member for Goyder, I have been talking to the federal government since the Coalition was in power about the flow-through savings scheme. I saw it in Japan and I spoke to the then minister about it, who told me that he was for it, but his colleagues did not support him, the Treasurer did not support him - that was Peter Costello at the time. I have been talking to the new minister, Martin Ferguson, about it and continue to talk to him about it. I know Mr Ferguson supports it but, of course, you have to get it through the Treasurer. People sometimes think the opposition is the enemy, but I believe the Treasurer is the enemy; Treasurers will try anything and are very effective at stopping things.
Member for Barkly, I thank you for your comments. I have a map that shows that most of the hot rocks - and that is established by deep drilling for oil - is concentrated through the middle to the north of the Northern Territory. These areas are remote but these areas provide us with the opportunity to establish energy factories or power generation facilities for the mines which develop in that area. Some mines are so remote they cannot be connected to the grid, but a number of mines will operate there in the near future.
Member for Fong Lim, I am always fascinated by the idea of clean coal. I do not know how clean coal can be. The reality is, if you burn coal you get carbon dioxide, and this is the problem we have. You can scrub coal-fired power stations, you can remove the sulphur dioxide, and you can remove the fly out; you can remove everything but carbon dioxide. I share some of your thoughts and frustration but we are now putting the basis for a green industry because, irrespective of the argument whether it is renewable energy or not, the reality is that emissions from this kind of power generation will be minimal compared with some others.
As I said, this map was generated from information from the holes drilled in the past by oil companies. Some of these drill holes can be up to 3.5 km deep. My information is that one of these holes would cost about $6.5m to $7m to drill; so it is expensive but we have to put this in place now rather than rush to put legislation through if people are interested.
At least now we will provide the industry with surety. They know what they are going to face when they come here; they know about the exploration leases; they know about the ability to produce energy on-site. They know what they have to do, and they know what tenure they will have in an area where they are exploring. No one is going to commit money for exploration unless they are assured they are going to get some return and have surety from the government that they are not going to have a lease today and have it taken away tomorrow.
I thank members for their contribution. As you are aware, we have some amendments and we will go into committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 8.
Clause 8 negatived.
New clause 8:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I believe that everyone has the amendments in front of them, so I will not read all the text. I will only read the heading of the proposed changes.
Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.1: insert a new clause 8 ‘Act binds Crown’.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I have no questions in relation to the amendments specifically. They are amendments that are here to rectify some problems that have been found subsequent to introducing the original bill.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, in relation to the new clause 8, I thank the government for the change. It is a sensible change. It tells the industry that the Crown is also bound by the conditions within this bill. I believe that is the right and proper way to go.
New clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 13.
Clause 13 negatived.
New clause 13:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.2: insert new clause 13, General entitlement to apply for permit.
Clause 13 has been reworded to clarify who may apply for a geothermal exploration permit and better define the blocks, the land, which is available for application to ensure that an application for a geothermal exploration permit cannot be made over reserved blocks or existing grant of authorities or pre-existing permit applications.
New clause 13 agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I invite defeat of clause 14.
Clause 14 negatived.
New clause 14:
Mr VATSKALIS: I move Amendment 8.3: insert new clause 14, Consideration of application received on same day.
Clause 14 has been reworded to clarify that the minister must determine which geothermal exploration permit will receive consideration if two or more permit applications for substantially the same area are received on the same business day. This allows the government to determine early in the authority granting procedure which application will be scrutinised and be advertised for public review, and the permit application not chosen will be rejected. The reason for that is that we can have two applications for the same area, or substantially the same area.
What we are really looking for is not for the name of the company but if the company is going to start exploration quickly, if the company is going to have expenditure in place, a plan in place, local employment benefits to community. So if we have two applications exactly the same, but one is going to offer more to the community and to the government, the minister makes a decision to award, in most cases, as it happens now, to the application which provides more to the Territory community.
Mr WOOD: In relation to new clause 14(2) where the minister must decide which application has the greatest merit to be given consideration for the grant of a permit, is it possible that there is an explanation note in relation to what the government means by ‘greatest merit’? You explained it just a little while ago, but I do not know whether it would be good to have some idea in note form in the act to say exactly what the government means by greatest merit?
Mr VATSKALIS: This is what is happening now. Merit cannot be defined in the act because merit may mean a lot of things. For example, the level of expenditure; the level of exploration; the fact that one company is prepared to employ local people for the exploration; the fact the company has a timetable in place when the exploration will take place and where the production will take place. These examples are happening now when we have land released and we have corporate expressions of interest. All the applications are assessed and the one that actually has the greatest merit for the community, the government and the operation receives the tick.
Mr TOLLNER: Have expressions of interest or inquiries been made to the minister’s office for exploration permits?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do not have exploration applications for the simple reason no one is going to explore a region if there is no legislative framework to establish how to do it or what exploration grant or lease or permission would be issued. If someone came to the department or the minister’s office to say they actually wanted to explore geothermal rocks, the advice was: we are putting legislation to parliament, wait for it, it will be out soon, so you will know exactly what you have to do.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I asked whether your department has received any expressions of interest to explore for hot rocks?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice from the department is that, yes, we have received many inquiries about exploration in the Territory for geothermal rocks.
New clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.4: in subclause (2) omit ‘minister’ and substitute ‘minister and the person who made the objection or submission’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 24 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.5: in the heading after ‘on’ insert ‘geothermal’. Just a minor amendment of new words.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.6: in the heading after ‘for’ insert ‘geothermal’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.7: in subclause (1)(a)(ii), after ‘energy’ insert ‘and the generation of power’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.8: after subclause (2) insert:
Mr TOLLNER: I have a question in relation to the generation of power, the maintenance of buildings and the infrastructure in connection with power generation. Has the government been involved in the geodynamic project in Innamincka? Has the government provided any grants or funding to that project? Can you give us some idea what types of construction, maintenance and infrastructure would be required at a typical hot rocks power generation facility?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the government has not put any money into a project which is in another state. The government is prepared to put money into projects that are in our own state. Currently, there is an exploration incentive for companies that explore in the Territory. Companies can be provided with up to $100 000 for dollar-for-dollar exploration in the Territory. The Territory government will only be involved in projects in the Northern Territory.
As for the infrastructure that would take place if there is potential for production of energy at a site with hot rocks - that would be a decision by the company, not by the government. The reason we put in this amendment is because we wanted to clarify the rights of the holder of a geothermal production lease that can use that lease to build facilities for generation of electricity from the geothermal energy produced on the lease. For example, we have a company that discovers hot rocks in the Territory; they can generate power. They may decide to generate power on-site because they have a lease, and provide the power to the mine which is close to the site.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, can I just correct you there? The government does provide money for projects interstate. In fact, you have a bill on the Notice Paper at the moment in relation to Lake Eyre, which is, essentially, a money bill where government will be funding another body to conduct research for environmental reasons in another state.
Mr VATSKALIS: Government provides money for other projects such as environmental purposes, but that is through agreement between the Commonwealth and the states. It happens not only with Lake Eyre, but in other areas. We are referring here to a mining project, to exploration, to something that actually has to be located in the Northern Territory. Our government does not subsidise BHP in Western Australia, and does not provide money for exploration in New South Wales. This is different from what you are referring to with Lake Eyre.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, I understand what you are saying, minister, but you must understand also there is a strong link between the research into this technology and hoping to have a hot rocks industry here in the Northern Territory. By passing this bill, it is clear that the government would be keen to see hot rocks technology occurring in the Northern Territory. That being the case, I would have thought the government would be keen to support any research into that, irrespective of where it occurs, considering the fact that it will have a significant impact on a future industry here in the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government is very happy and prepared to support research done in the Northern Territory, not interstate. The only difference would be if that research is done with an agreement between other states and the Commonwealth for scientific purposes. We are very happy to support the research on hot rocks if we get an application, but it has to happen in the Territory.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.9: in the heading omit ‘licence’ and substitute with ‘lease’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.10: in subclauses (1) and (2)(a) omit all reference to ‘licence’ and substitute ‘lease’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.11: in clause 35(2) omit ‘be in’ and substitute ‘be substantially in’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amendment, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 52, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 52A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.12: that proposed new clause 52A be inserted in the bill after clause 52 in Part 5, Division 3: Drill cores, cuttings and other samples.
New clause 52A agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 55, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 56 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.13: in clause 56(1) omit and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 59 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.14: omit clause 59(1)(b) and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 68, by leave, together and agreed to.
Clause 69 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.15: omit subclause (4).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.16: omit subclause (6) and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.17: in subclause (7)(b) omit ‘register’ and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 73.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! Sorry, did I hear you right, saying you are inviting defeat?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: The question is that it stand as printed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.18: insert new clause 73 ‘Notice of Registration’. The new version of clause 73 expands and clarifies the minister’s role and responsibilities when making changes to the register of an authority. It provides that relevant parties to an authority are formally notified of any change to the register, and gives the minister discretion to notify anyone else with an interest in the authority of the register change.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, in relation to registering a title, I go back to an earlier discussion we had in relation to what is considered merit, and you said there was a range of things. One could be where someone wants to actually develop this. Has any consideration been given to organisations which simply may want to warehouse titles, that is, sit on them forever and a day? In the case, for example, where there are a couple of companies vying for a particular title, how can the minister determine which of those companies will not warehouse that particular title?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do look at is warehousing. When companies come to us and propose a plan for exploration, they have to put a plan of exploration, how they are going to do it, the time they are going to do it, what money they are going to spend. That is one of the issues we examine. We do not want to allow people to come, put in an application and lock up a piece of land without doing anything for a year, five years, 10 years or 20 years. We understand the technology is new. We provide exploration permits for exploration after we consider all their proposals. After they do the exploration, because the technology is new, we will allow them to maintain the block for a period of time. However, it has to be a period of time well specified which would not permit people coming in and locking up a prospective area for 20 or 30 years.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, can you tell what that period of time is? Is that in the legislation?
Mr VATSKALIS: The period for exploration is three lots of five years. After that term has expired they may consider if they want to keep their block or they want to relinquish it
Mr TOLLNER: Once it has gone past the exploration stage to the mining stage, if that is the correct term, how long can they sit on it?
Mr VATSKALIS: At the end of the exploration period they have to make a decision to keep it and develop it or not, and that is specified. As I explained to you before, the bill provides for the grant of three different titles. The first one, a geothermal exploration permit for contact exploration for heat sources, for three lots of five years. A geothermal retention licence where the resources have been discovered but cannot yet be commercially extracted. And a geothermal production lease on which to develop commercial resources that may be viable. The retention lease also is three lots of five years. So, three lots of five years for exploration and three lots of five years for the retention lease.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, the reason I ask these questions is because we are talking about unproven technology. You have indicated the department has already received interest from people wishing explore for hot rocks. Obviously, no one really has an idea as to when the technology will be proven. Someone may well go out, explore for hot rocks, find hot rocks, sit on the exploration lease as long as they possibly can; go to the next stage, sit on that and find out the technology is not quite there. I would imagine they would feel unfairly treated if they were forced to give up title because the technology was not quite there in order to develop that particular resource.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, exploration permits allow you to explore, so you can apply for a maximum of three lots of five years. After that it is not an automatic granting of a retention lease, you have to apply for it. The department will be able to assess if the technology is there or not before granting or not granting the application. Every time it comes up for renewal, the department once again will assess if the technology is there yet. There is no automatic right of renewal; it is upon application.
Mr TOLLNER: I take it from what you are saying, minister, that the companies involved would have to be of quite substantial nature in order to go through these processes with no real light at the end of the tunnel apart from a dream that one day, down the track, we may have the technology in place to exploit that particular resource. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Most of the companies that currently do mining exploration are not the big companies, not BHP or Rio Tinto. It is actually small explorers and when they hit the jackpot they can then flog off their tenement. The same thing happened with Bootu Creek, and with Arafura Resources. The harsh realty is big companies do not like to risk their shareholders’ money. They rely upon discoveries by smaller companies, and I expect the same thing will happen here. When someone hits a really hot spot then they can go to BHP and say: ‘I have a tenement that can generate 170 to 180 degrees. It starts at X depth’, and then the big companies will assess whether they want to exploit it.
Mr TOLLNER: But you get my point? I understand that the scratchers are the ones who generally make the discoveries and will want to sell that lease to an organisation that has the capacity to exploit the resource. I am getting to the point where I am asking about the organisation that is capable of exploiting that resource. As you say, these large companies have an obligation to shareholders. Has any assessment been done as to what large companies are interested in buying up proven hot rock resources? Is there the confidence in the marketplace that this technology will arrive at any point soon?
Mr VATSKALIS: Many of these organisations develop the technologies currently, and many people make a lot of money because they take a risk finding something that possibly today is not exploitable, but may be exploitable in two years time, three years time. The biggest incentive is that after the exploration phase, during the retention of the lease, people have to apply for the retention of the lease, but also the minister, under the legislation, has the right to go back and ask them why they should not developed it, and the reason why they should develop it. If the minister gets an unsatisfactory answer, he can cancel the lease. So the companies, after the exploration phase, have a really strong incentive to develop what they have found, otherwise they lose their retention lease.
Mr TOLLNER: Of course, minister, if the technology is not there, you could hardly blame the company for not developing the resource. Do you take my point?
Mr VATSKALIS: No one forces companies to apply for exploration or to explore and spend money for something if they are not sure they are going to make money out of it. We do not force people to undertake exploration. However, we do provide a legislative framework for them to know, as surety, when they get a lease that they can get a retention lease, how long this lease will last , and a development lease.
Mr TOLLNER: I suppose that is not quite my point, minister. I will backtrack a bit. This is a very risky business. All mining is risky, like making films I suppose, but it is even more risky when, as we heard in debates today, it is an extremely expensive mining operation. It costs a lot of money to drill very deep holes, to set up some of the equipment that is required, and the technology is not proven, the technology is not there yet. This is the point: has any modelling been done to see whether companies are interested in taking on these proven resources, given the fact that not only is any mining operation risky, but in this particular case the level of risk is elevated significantly because the technology does not even exist to exploit that?
Another example, minister, may be in the clean coal area. I imagine at times there will be companies hunting around for holes in the ground in which to pump carbon dioxide. I have not seen too much of a market for that at the moment. I imagine it is because the technology is not quite there to utilise that. The question, fundamentally, is: has anything been done to ascertain whether any companies are even interested in this?
Mr VATSKALIS: First of all, the reason why the tenure periods are for such a long period of time is in order to alleviate the risk. You do not see the same for mining oil and gas. The other thing, it is not the governments that do the modelling, but the private companies undertaking exploration of unproven or very new technology. The companies are doing that risk analysis. The companies do the modelling. I know you are talking about this in general - hot rocks and geothermal energy - which has nothing to do with clause 73 which we are actually debating now.
Once again, I say the modelling does not have to be done by us. What we have to do, as government, is to provide the legislative framework for these people to know how things operate and where they stand if they apply for an exploration licence and, later, for a retention licence.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you would be aware also that government reacts to the needs of industry. In this case it seems to me you are chasing a pie-in-the-sky idea; that there is simply too much risk involved for companies to take on these leases simply because the technology is not there yet and there is no indication at all as to when that technology will proven.
Mr VATSKALIS: As you said before, risk is inherent in mining operations and exploration. When a company comes to the Territory and wants to do mining exploration, we do not do modelling for them. What we do is provide legislation in place and, if we have information about ground surveys, aerial surveys, or geological surveys we provide this information. They take this information and can do the numbers themselves. We record information and we, either through the Commonwealth or ourselves, provide information to them about protocol, and we provide the legislative framework. What they do with that it is their business.
There is unproven technology - 20years ago no one would have expected an 800 km underwater pipeline to come from Western Australia and bring gas to Darwin. Today it is happening. As I said, people and companies undertake their own risk; they should not expect the Australian taxpayer to do their risk analysis for them.
Mr TOLLNER: Point taken. Twenty years ago we would not have had mobile phones.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right; someone took the risk.
New clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.19, subclause (3) omit ‘the approved form’ and substituting ‘writing’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.20: in the heading, omit ‘Land Title’ and substitute ‘Law of Property’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.21: in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) omit ‘Land Title’ and substitute ‘Law of Property’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80.
Clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 negatived.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move that the proposed new clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 be inserted in the bill.
New Clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80, as proposed, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 97, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move that amendment 8.23 be agreed to: Part 9, omit ‘Proceeding’ in the heading ‘Committee Proceedings’ and substitute with ‘Proceedings’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: In relation to section 99(2) of the act, in the Mining Management Act under offences there, the wording used is: ‘10% of specified penalty in respect of each day’. Yet, in the Geothermal Energy Bill, a similar offence would only attract 10 penalty units, which is $1100, when it may be hundreds of times if it were a serious accident. What I am saying is that, when an operator is told to stop performing an action by an authorised person, but continues with that action when they would only be fined $1100 on top of any specified penalties decided in the court, this is in stark contrast to the Mining Management Act, which would penalise the operator 10% of the total specified penalty per day of the operation after the notice to stop. For example, if the specified penalty under the Mining Management Act were $100 000, the operator would be charged an additional $10 000 for every day they failed to comply with the order. I am questioning why there is a difference between the ongoing penalty regime in the Mining Management Act and the ongoing penalty regime in the Geothermal Energy Bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: These are different acts which do not agree. I agree with what you say. This is a brand new act. So there are different penalties under this act and there will be different penalties under the Mining Management Act. The hot rocks will come under the Geothermal Energy Act, while the Mining Management Act applies to minerals. We have a similar situation if you discover oil and if you discover coal. Coal comes under the Minerals Act; oil comes under the Petroleum Act. This is a different act altogether, so there are different provisions for different acts, and that is usual. This is a new act. These are new provisions. The Mining Act is currently under review, and the penalties would be reviewed as well, so I would not be surprised if I bring to parliament a new act and we will find that is similar to the new Mining Act.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, I hear what you are saying, and I realise it is a new bill and it is totally different to the Mining Act or the Mining Management Act. However, I was looking at the differential in penalty between the two and why this is such a small penalty when the penalty that exists in the Mining Management Act is so much larger.
Mr VATSKALIS: This act describes the penalty in penalty units, while the Mining Act is still in dollars. The clause says that a court may, in addition to any penalty imposed for the offence - and there is no limitation on how much the maximum penalty might be - impose a 10% penalty for every day the offence continues to be committed. It is a provision of the act to penalise people who do not obey the law. That was the advice we received from Parliamentary Counsel on how it should be drafted.
Madam CHAIR: Minister, if I could just check with you – we have moved Amendment 8.23?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we moved it.
Clauses 98 to 116, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 117 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.24: omit subclause (1).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.25: in subclause (2) omit ‘other information’ and substitute ‘information’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.26: in subclause (2)(c) omit ‘substitute’ and insert subclauses (2)(c) and (2)(d).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.27: in subclause (3) omit:
and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 118 to 121, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 122 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.28: omit clause 122(3) and substitute:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I understand that the intention of the bill is to facilitate the development and administration of unit title schemes which are flexible and meet the contemporary needs of today as Darwin and the Northern Territory develop. This bill will also regulate the operation of these schemes. In talking to this legislation, I will not go through the legislation clause by clause, but what I will do is list some of the issues and concerns as they have been put to me in my discussions with industry people.
The first point that I would like to raise is the short time frame and how this bill and the discussion papers were put out for public circulation. It was done right at the end of last year, somewhere around 29 November, coming into the Christmas and holiday period which did not give a lot of time for consultation with the industry, in particular the real estate industry. I know they asked for extensions of time, but it was not received; not a good way to go about introducing new legislation. Having said that, we are not in a position to oppose this legislation, however, I would like to list some areas of concern and trust they are taken into consideration prior to any enforcement of this legislation.
There is reference throughout the act to various sections requiring unanimous resolutions. The definition of unanimous resolutions as set out in the proposed act is, and I quote: ‘A motion is passed by unanimous resolution if no vote is counted against the motion.’ My question is: does this mean if there are 10 units and only five members of the body corporate constitute a quorum and sufficient notice was provided to the owners that a unanimous resolution was on the table for discussion, if only five out of the 10 units respond, is this classified as unanimous resolution as passed?
In conducting meetings and if the true meaning of unanimous resolution is one vote per unit, one vote per unit must be obtained for it to be a unanimous resolution, an abstention from voting is classified as neither a yes or a no vote. The Unit Titles Act clearly states that a unanimous resolution consists of votes from all the members of a body corporate. However, this has, at times, proven impossible to obtain and hence causes confusion and sometimes suffering for all parties involved, including the landlords, the tenants and the real estate industry generally over many years. Whilst many parts of the industry, I have been briefed, agrees that the use of the unanimous resolution, in its true meaning, for some minor part of the act is necessary, the industry and ourselves cannot understand why reference is made to 90% of the owners based on unit entitlements when, clearly, a special resolution would suffice.
Madam Speaker, we cannot agree with changing the meaning of unanimous resolution to something other than what it is intended for; but absolutely agree that there are parts of the act that should not require a unanimous resolution. Therefore, the voting methods should be changed accordingly to make it more practicable. At the end of the day, we want all new legislation to be practicable and to be workable and for it to be clear and unambiguous.
I will give you an example. If an owner wishes to install a shade sail to the structure due to the blinding sun, which we get here in the Top End, which prohibits the owner from enjoying the full utilisation and comfortable surrounds of their unit, they cannot do so under the present unanimous decisions regulation unless all owners agree. The principle of common law is that one person cannot hold back others from achieving a common goal.
The proposed scheme under Part 3.4 section 87(1) is very specific in that a letting agent is required to be a licensed real estate manager. However, the same section does not indicate a body corporate manager needs to hold the same relevant licence. While it is acknowledged that in accordance with the Agents Licensing Act, a body corporate manager is required to hold an Agents Representative Licence, this proposed act is not specifically targeted to body corporate managers, as such. If a corporation chooses to self-manage, then any person can act as a body corporate manager and receive whatever fee they think fit and appropriate at that time, as it does not state the body corporate manager has to hold the respective licence. The new draft scheme needs to clearly state the body corporate manager must be similarly qualified and hold a current real estate licence. We all know that the body corporate manager is the person in charge of the trust funds for large body corporate, and this is a major responsibility which cannot and should not be treated lightly.
We believe this draft scheme is very complex and somewhat ambiguous and, unfortunately, like the current act, is open to interpretation. As I said before, with new legislation - whilst I understand this is complex and has probably been difficult to construct - we must endeavour to get it as clear and unambiguous as possible. One area in particular we believe can be open to interpretation is clauses 15(2)(a) and 15(3)(c). These sections state that relevant schemes may be terminated if carried out by a unanimous resolution and, in addition, by 90% of the total interest entitlements. It could be argued that you cannot have a unanimous resolution and a 90% support of total entitlements for the termination of a body corporate at the same time ...
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, I just ask for clarification of this section. I am trying to find it.
Ms PURICK: Section 15(2)(a) and section 15(3)(c).
Mr Wood: I have 15, Termination by resolution. Page 13 of the bill?
Ms PURICK: I am not sure about the page.
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, just a clarification. My clause 15 says Termination by resolution. Is that the section we are on?
Ms PURICK: They are the sections that I have had briefings on from the industry that they are concerned about.
Mr Wood: It does not match the numbers I have in the bill, that is the only thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you can raise that in the committee stage, member for Nelson.
Ms PURICK: Yes, in committee stage.
Mr Wood: I am just trying to follow the debate.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I will just clarify that the member opposite is referring to the draft bill; that is not actually in this bill before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I would like to acknowledge these young people. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of the 1st Darwin Sea Scouts accompanied by Scout Leader ‘Curlew’ Mrs Alex Knowler, Scout Leader ‘Kestrel’, Mr Ross Champion, and Group Leader ‘Squid’, Mr Peter Zagorski. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Knight: Madam Speaker, the former member for Port Darwin’s son is also up there - Luca.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
With respect to legal implications and subsequent cost involved for failing to comply, a concern is the required amount of time given for a body corporate to comply. The majority of penalties within this proposed act are imposed if the body corporate fails to comply with the regulations. As mentioned previously, the ability to obtain a unanimous resolution is quite difficult and, given that there is a legal requirement currently to provide all owners with 21 days written notice of the unanimous resolution, the ability to obtain this unanimous resolution in this time frame will be extremely difficult and almost impossible, given that the vast majority of owners often live interstate.
Another point which has been put to me from industry representations is in regard to the management modules. The introduction of similar management modules for both the Unit Titles Act and the current proposed scheme legislation is an advantage. However, it is difficult to comment due to the incompletion of the management modules for the proposed scheme. A question is: whether the developer is the right person to choose the management modules, given the fact that once the building is developed then the vast majority of developers have very little to do with that property in the future. Perhaps there should be parameters for the different types of body corporate and, based on those parameters, the management modules that best suit will be the management modules that the body corporate must comply with. The developer of a property is not going to know which one would best suit the body corporate for the future benefits of all parties involved.
A further concern with the introduction of this legislation is it is important that any changes which affect the current act will be changed accordingly, as mentioned previously. It is difficult to make any comment having not seen the relevant modules.
A further concern is: if an owner has a unit under the new proposed act, and also has a unit which is currently governed by the Unit Titles Act, then there can be some confusion as to processes between the two. This could cause problems and confusion with body corporate managers, possibly the letting agent, and also vendors. In addition, with the introduction of the new legislation, how are new owners expected to make decisions without an understanding of the act, and will they rely heavily on advice provided by the body corporate managers? Is it the role of a body corporate manager to assist them in their decision-making process, or will this be the responsibility of the scheme supervisor?
With respect to the unit boundaries, we believe it is vital to clearly outline exactly what is body corporate responsibility and what is not. In particular, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding when the pipework becomes the owners’ responsibility; and whether the utilities, such as telephone lines and so forth, are the responsibility of the body corporate or the owner. This needs clarification, and to be clearly stated in the proposed new legislation.
The Unit Titles Act has attempted to do this and, to some extent, has succeeded. However, we believe there still are some grey areas between insurance companies and their coverage, which has caused problems with determining the owner’s responsibility and the body corporate responsibilities. We recommend that consultation with the respective authorities when determining what the unit boundaries are, and so forth, be conducted to ensure that it is very clear for all parties concerned. It is important, I believe, that clarity of these definitions are sought from the industry to ensure that the legislation is workable.
With the introduction of the new legislation, I strongly suggest and recommend that there would be training sessions carried out by government, in association with industry, to ensure that relevant real estate companies who provide body corporate management services understand and become familiar with this new act and its relationship to the existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we do not oppose this legislation but, I believe, given the haste with which it, and the consultation papers, were pushed through at the end of last year over the Christmas period, which was not entirely fair, that the government and the agency which is responsible for this does consult extensively and widely with industry to ensure that the legislation, when it becomes law, is workable and there is no unintended, additional cost on the various stakeholders in the real estate industry.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this bill. Without doubt, it is a very complex bill and I have struggled to find my way through it. I was a little confused by what the member for Goyder was saying, because I could not follow some of the sections she was referring to. However, if she was referring to the draft bill, then I am not sure whether her concerns were covered by the bill we have in front of us, because this is obviously the bill that we have to debate tonight.
I went through it and thought if it is complex for me what is it like for other people, except those people in the industry? I would hope the government can actually bring out some fact sheets which are a combination of a more simplistic approach, that is, they are clear for people to understand, along with diagrams. I noticed the bill uses diagrams to describe basic schemes and layered schemes, and I would have thought something that could come out of this particular debate, when it is passed, is we have some fact sheets that the lay man or lay woman can understand.
I have a number of questions which I would like to deal with at the committee stage; they might be easier to look at it then. I tried to get in contact with various groups regarding what they thought about the changes. I have something from the web in relation to the Property Council of the NT which recognises the important contribution properly functioning titles legislation can play in urban renewal, and it has provided a submission to the Department of Justice on this proposed legislation. If enacted, the new legislation will make the Northern Territory the first jurisdiction to have legislation that provides scheme termination by less than unanimous agreement. I have some concerns about that.
The member for Goyder noted you would have to have 90% of unit holders agree before that scheme came into being. My impression from the member for Goyder was that some of the industries are looking for lower than that. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I might deal with that a little more now, then ask the questions when we get to that section.
My concerns about this new section where 90% of unit holders can decide if they would like the block of flats, or the condominiums or whatever they live, in to be demolished, they can. That is on the understanding that the original scheme said clearly if 90% of the people decided the buildings should be demolished, then that can happen. I understand these concepts of urban renewal, etcetera, but we have to be careful not to forget that a unit is not just a unit; in many cases, a unit is a home, and I think of the film The Castle. I am concerned that whilst it might be all right to write these things in a contract, 20 years down the track might be another thing. My understanding is the demolition of these units could not occur until 20 years had passed. I would like to see some protection for the people who did not agree, the 10% who did not agree, not because I am saying it cannot happen, especially if you have signed off on it, but perhaps there needs to be some provision which says the 10% who did not agree would be guaranteed to have a unit in the new development at similar costs and under similar arrangements.
I would not like to see one group of people say to another group of people: ‘We can simply destroy your home’, without some form of adequate compensation for those people who will lose their home. It is not just a legal matter. There is a more to it than that. There is a social matter in relation to someone having the power to basically say: ‘We will demolish your house’. That might be all right for governments. As is mentioned in the bill, governments have the power to compulsorily acquire land and they must do that on just terms. The just terms are, again, something out of the movie The Castle. I believe just terms should also apply if someone is required to give up their home for demolition for something which, some might say is very important, that is urban renewal, and some might say it is not the end of the world. There is an area where we need to make sure if it comes in, then it should be done on just terms. Minister, in your second reading you said there are only two places in the world that allow that. So we are moving into an area not many other countries have in their legislation. We need at least to travel in that area with a softly, softly approach.
The Property Council says while supporting the general intention of the bill, they have the following concerns with the draft legislation, and that is partly to do with what I just spoke about - the likely ineffectiveness of provisions for termination to facilitate urban renewal. They would prefer 75%; also, the lack of applicability or reforms to existing unit title schemes; and the onerous disclosure provisions which are likely to deter development. It is interesting when you get into this section on disclosure statements; I must admit I nearly fell over when the government was promoting this. I have been pushing a scheme for some time. If I had more than one question a day, I could have probably got to the question.
What has happened to the concept of sellers of ordinary houses and land having to provide information up-front before they sell their land? I have been pushing that for years and it seems to have come to a dead end at the moment. Yet, when I look in the Units Title Schemes Bill, here it is. They are requiring the seller to provide some details about the scheme to the buyer before the buyer signs on the dotted line; that is something I would support. Perhaps the same objections I get from a small element of the real estate industry - not the whole industry - is reflected in the statement by the Property Council that they believe there are onerous disclosure provisions which are likely to deter development.
I believe it is important when people buy into a unit complex that they know exactly what they are doing. There is also another section in here which says they also have to know what the ongoing costs will be; not just the normal day-to-day costs, but other management costs that may not be seen until after the unit is sold. I believe this legislation is trying to make sure those extra costs, which can be quite onerous, are known up-front by the person buying the unit.
I have some questions about the methods of voting, not so much because I do not understand what unanimous and those type of words mean, but there are some clauses, especially in section 79 which need more explanation. I am referring to clauses 79(7) and 79(8), and I put these forward as something the minister wants to respond to now, or if it goes to committee. Clause 79(7) says:
I understand that; and
Hmm, not sure what that means. And further down under subsection (8) it says:
I would like more explanation of that.
I should say that I did get a briefing, but this is a fairly complex bill. Even though we did get a briefing, I cannot say that we covered every aspect of this bill. I would like that section to be given more explanation. I tried to understand what contribution entitlements meant, and that is probably the problem I have as well. It is not easy to understand.
Another area which I ask the minister to look at is section 146(q); it is in relation to the changes to the Planning Act. It talks about an amendment of section 51, Matters to be taken into account, and it says:
My concern is that I would have thought that is a role of the Building Board, not the role of the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority basically just says: we approve this building subject to it being passed by a building inspector. We seem now to have moved some of the responsibility of physically seeing whether the building has structural integrity or has suitable fire safety onto the Planning Authority. I am asking the minister why we shifted that responsibility to them when we already have a department which has that job. We have the fire department and the Building Board, so why not just give it a tick instead of asking the Development Consent Authority to deal with that?
I have a broad question. We have two acts now. We are going to have the Unit Title Schemes Act and the Unit Titles Act. Some people will be under one and some under the other. I would like to know what the mechanics are. If I own a block of units and they have a scheme under the Unit Titles Act, how difficult is it for me to get myself out of that scheme and put myself in the new scheme, which I might think is a better scheme to be in than the old scheme? What is the requirement if I would like to do that?
The other question is: can someone apply for a scheme under the existing Unit Titles Act or, once this act comes into being, the other unit titles scheme will not take any new applications? So, with time, it will fade away – it will probably be a fair time too. I would have thought if the government wanted to encourage the concept of only having one act covering unit titles it would be working out an easier mechanism to get people who were in the old scheme to shift into the new scheme. I hope that makes sense. There are some general questions. I was going to leave some of them to the committee stage, but you may be able to answer those in the meantime.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very interested in this legislation. I agree with both the members for Goyder and Nelson that this legislation is confusing in the extreme.
The people I have talked to within the real estate industry say to me things like: ‘We support this legislation in principle and we support the concept that the government is trying to promote; that they want a scheme which is better for the consumer, the developer and for the body corporate manager’. Who could possibly disagree with such intention? However, after that, there is a big ‘but’. The ‘but’ is, first, this legislation should have been incorporated into the current Unit Titles Act. The reason it was not, I am informed, is because it was too difficult. It may well be too difficult for the legislators, but spare a thought for the poor people who have to try, somehow or other, to interpret definitions within this act.
The member for Nelson talked about average punters who have to understand this. It needs to be borne in mind that not all bodies corporate and body corporate managers are professionals; quite often you will find a small unit development being self-managed and the unit owners simply decide: ‘We do not want to get a professional. We have a small enough block of units, we all get on quite well; let us just manage our own block of units’. That is a fair thing and is something that should be encouraged in our society. We do not want to confuse things too much.
Yesterday, during the opposition’s business day, I promoted a motion about a regulation relief advisory committee. I went through that and highlighted a range of areas within government legislation that conflict and create confusion, add cost to businesses, and the like. It is great to see during this debate we have the Minister for Business here, because he was telling us yesterday that government is always on the lookout for legislation and regulations that create confusion, that are unnecessary, and the government is keen to clear the way and simplify things as much as possible. Here we are, the very next day, debating a bill that flies in the face of everything the minister said, because there is nothing, practically, in this bill that does not create confusion.
There is major conflict between this proposed Unit Title Schemes Bill and the existing Unit Titles Act. The member for Goyder raised a number of areas of conflict. The member for Nelson raised a number of areas that seemed to conflict with one another between the two acts, and also mentioned a range of areas that are just plain confusing.
It is amazing that the government has the gall to come in here and run this sort of line that they are trying to make things better; that they are trying to help consumers, developers, and body corporate managers, but the government is not prepared to do the hard work and actually combine the act and reform that particular act into something that is workable for everybody. Instead, they come in with a hotchpotch of ideas, bits of sticky tape and glue, and crazy ideas and say: ‘This is far easier for us. We will do it this way’. Pity the poor bloke out there on the street who has to somehow interpret this nonsense we have put together in this place. That is exactly what it is. There is a range of things in here that are very difficult to understand. It is not simple legislation at all. In many cases it is impossible to understand and will require long periods in court rooms to actually interpret the meaning of some of the definitions in clauses in the act.
The Unit Titles Act and this bill, at times, are completely contradictory. I have to ask the question: will there be any changes to the Unit Titles Act to bring it in line with this scheme? Will there be any assistance given to operators, body corporate managers, developers, to tenants and owners of units and houses by government, such as information sessions? Will the supervisor for the act be the same as the supervisor for the scheme? Will the supervisor for either the act or the scheme be out there consulting and available to the public and to people who have an interest in this area? Will there be seminars put on once this legislation is passed for bodies corporate and body corporate managers?
The member for Goyder mentioned problems in areas such as: what is a unanimous resolution? Under this scheme a unanimous resolution is deemed to be a resolution that some people agree on and, as long as no one fails to respond, it is considered unanimous. Under the Unit Titles Act, that is not the case at all. Unanimous is unanimous, you require agreement from every single person. Both scenarios have hairs all over them. The idea there is 90% support creates some problems too, if you are in a unit block with three units and they are a self-managing body corporate, basically, you are saying you need 100% support.
Some of the penalties involved for failing to comply seem to be a bit harsh given the time frames by which bodies corporate have to respond; 21 days written notice of a unanimous resolution. In many cases the government knows, we know, the owners live interstate. The owners can be quite difficult to track down. I believe trying to penalise bodies corporate for their failure to contact one of the members is plain wrong.
Like the member for Nelson, I will have many questions during the committee stage of this bill. I will not go into them all right now; I will save them for when we are in the committee stage.
One thing I do want to make totally clear is my opposition to this bill and the way it has been put together. The way I look at it, it is in complete conflict, it creates confusion and does nothing to ease the regulatory burden that businesses and individuals face in our community. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that just yesterday we had this debate about regulation relief. I saw the minister get up yesterday and carry on about what the government is doing to reduce the regulatory burden, to clear the roadblocks. Yet here we are, the very next day discussing a bill that, for most people, will be impossible to understand. It is very difficult, almost impossible to comply with, it creates costs to themselves, their bodies corporate, to the organisations they work for, needless costs, and can land them in hot water if they do not comply.
It is a sad thing that the government is not prepared to do the leg work; they say it is too difficult to combine those two acts. That is the point of being legislators; we do the hard work. The minister yesterday talked about their courage to make the tough decisions. Where was the courage in making a tough decision here? They completely failed; they went to water. Let us do the simple thing and, when I say the simple thing, it is the simple thing for the government, not the simple thing for the people out there, people in the industry, all those people who have to interpret and work with this legislation. In fact, it is very difficult for them, extraordinarily confusing, but it is a simple thing for government.
It is very disappointing that these guys seem to take their jobs as being PR people for the Labor Party. Nothing but voices that speak up and tell the rest of the Territory how good they are, what a wonderful job they are doing, when the reality is they are not prepared to do the hard work. They are not prepared to take the drafters of this legislation on and say: ‘Get your act together! We want something that is robust, something that can take us into the future, something that people out there can understand. Go back to the drawing board. Show us how we can pull these two acts together, take away the confusion, do what is necessary to make it right for the people out there who have to operate under this act’. No, they do not do that; they take the easy option for themselves.
Then they will stand up and say: ‘But everyone said they agreed with this legislation’. Well, everyone says they agree with it in principle. They can understand the motivation behind it. We want to do better for consumers, for developers and for body corporate managers. No one can disagree with that, that is a great goal and something we all want to do. Ultimately, that is the failure of this legislation - It does not do any good for the consumer. It does a great deal of damage to the consumer and the developers who have to determine how this works. A developer is supposed to put in place the management model for a particular complex. Quite often the developer will just sell the complex and go away, but the developer is expected to interpret what the owners of that complex will want. To me, that is not right, that is an unfair burden to put on developers and it takes away some of the rights of the owners. The owners should be able to determine for themselves the best method of managing the property.
I will leave it there, Madam Speaker. I highlight again that I think this is cumbersome, it is burdensome, it is confusing, it is muddled - a bit like those who sit opposite - and it is an easy option for members of the government. It does nothing at all to enhance the idea that we want to reduce regulation, that we want to make things simpler, and we want to grease the skids for developers, body corporate managers and those people who are undertaking commercial activity.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. The earth is not flat. The earth is round and likewise what is evolving within the business world, particularly the property world, is quite complex. We only have to look at what is evolving here and what is planned for the development at the waterfront. There are quite different businesses which will be adjacent to leisure areas and residential areas; all these things are juxtaposed, they are in together, and this is typical of modern developments - they are quite complex. What this bill seeks to do is address the complexities, particularly in relation to staged developments.
I listened with great care to what the member for Fong Lim had to say, and he is pointing to those complexities within the bill. He is saying the man in the street cannot understand them but, with all respect to the member for Fong Lim, the types of people who undertake these types of developments are not really the man in the street. These developments, particularly the more complex ones, require a lot of money …
Mr Tollner: What about the self-managed body corporate?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a lot of planning and a lot of expertise.
Mr Tollner: This does not just apply to them.
Dr BURNS: Please let me continue, member for Fong Lim. So, it is not a plateau. There are quite complex inter-relationships in there and what this bill seeks to do is address those inter-relationships. I know from when I was Attorney-General, there has been much consultation with industry on this particular issue. The member for Fong Lim will get his opportunities, as will the member for Nelson, to investigate and interrogate some of the complexities associated with this bill. No one is pretending this is not a complex bill, it is. But, member for Fong Lim, I understand you did not seek a briefing on this issue; so, you come in here without seeking a briefing. When I was Attorney-General I sought a number of briefings on this particular issue because it is a complex issue and, although I have four degrees, I am never afraid to ask a question.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification for the minister, I have received several briefings on this scheme.
Dr BURNS: But not from any officer at Department of Justice.
Mr Tollner: Oh, no.
Dr BURNS: Well, there you go. So you come in here and have a go at those officers who drafted this legislation, and we will have to go to Hansard to see what you have said. You have implied they have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of this; and where are their political masters? I believe the inference was that we should have just stepped in and said: ‘No, that is not good enough. Go back to the drawing board; come back when everyone is satisfied’. It is good you have a range of views, which we have also, but we have also asked those with legal qualifications, legal backgrounds, those with experience in drafting legislation, and quite vast experience - they are the people giving us advice.
I do not think it would have hurt you, member for Fong Lim, to seek a briefing to ask the questions that have been raised with you by various members of the community - those involved in strata titles, real estate, property development or property management - and put those questions yourself at a briefing. Basically, you did not avail yourself of that. You have come straight into this parliament and have made those inferences. It is your right as a parliamentarian to do that. No doubt, we will get into the committee stages and you will have your turn to ask those questions, and the minister will rightly advise you.
However, it is complex. It builds on reforms put in place through the Land Title and Related Legislation Amendment Bill last year. The 2008 reforms dealt with many of the legacy issues in the original statutes and incorporated significant modernisation of our land title and related arrangements.
We have listened to the views of business and the community and have made key improvements which have been incorporated into this bill, and we believe those improvements will bear out that these improvements are necessary. There is a more flexible, simpler, and targeted approach to match developer and community needs and demands, and this is the approach that is being taken. The reforms will provide a balanced approach providing simplicity, certainty and flexibility. They respond to the real-life situations that arise where there are stages and layers of ownership in subdivision proposals, as we have at the waterfront, and increasingly in Darwin and in the rest of Australia, and complex interrelationships and ownership of these stages and layers. It is not a flat earth. There are many layers to it, and that is what this bill seeks to address.
We are providing a flexible, operating framework for unit title developments. The reforms will make it possible to complete a staged development within the umbrella of a scheme statement, without the developer being forced to commit to a strict timetable, plans or specification for future stages prior to development approval. The member for Fong Lim talked about red tape and all the rest of it. Here is something that government is putting into statute to provide flexibility for developers - and he is canning it, saying it is a straightjacket. Well, it is not a straightjacket; this is a flexible approach. This is a government that is attuned to business.
I advise the member for Fong Lim to get a contemporary briefing on this, because there are many views. I have listened to them within that particular sector, but the one prevailing view that was put to me by a number of people as we developed this legislation, when I was Attorney-General, was this is a very complex undertaking; everyone agrees on that. We are not shying away from that.
These reforms allow for different layers of unit development within a parent scheme, without having to select and designate each layer as a specific type of unit titles scheme, and being unable to alter this later - once again, flexibility. This flexibility is achieved while also protecting the interests of prospective purchasers through appropriate vendor disclosure provisions. The bill caters for these ownership arrangements and amends current provisions which have proved to be overly complex and cumbersome in the evolving and dynamic, modern development market workplace. That is a view that has been put to me strongly, and I am sure to other members here, by developers.
The bill also improves the arrangements for common property such as parks, equipment and sporting facilities to be covered more simply and effectively. As the Attorney-General has noted, it also allows for individual parcels to split easily into units for particular purposes; for example, into residential apartments.
We have listened and we are taking the action needed to achieve improvements and give effect to the input we have received. Certainty, for existing unit owners, developers and corporations is clearly vitally important in introducing these improvements. To ensure this is the case, the ongoing governance of existing and current unit developments and corporations will be provided for through the reformed Unit Titles Act which will remain in operation - which is in answer to one of the questions the member for Fong Lim asked.
To give further flexibility, the option to continue using the existing act, or the proposed new Unit Title Schemes Act, will be available to project developers during a transitional period. Once again, flexibility. The flexibility to be provided will also extend to the staging of developments and the ability to deal with each stage independently, if desired. This will assist developers and improve the outcomes for purchasers. The arrangements for disclosure statements are also to be reformed and improved. These reforms provide sensible flexibility to the Development Consent Authority in approving subdivisions in a staged manner, consistent with the physical development of projects and sites. They also allow greater alignments with existing development of major landholdings and the progressive development of those holdings. Formal lodgement of subdivision documents with the Registrar-General will allow for the settling of by-law and related management arrangements, including exclusive use by-laws for relevant projects and associated bodies corporate.
The flexibility allowed for in the reforms will provide for more effective management of sales off-the-plan, something I would think would be welcomed by the development community, because that is the way things are done currently. That is actually what banks are insisting on with modern developments. They want to see evidence of sales off-the-plan so anything that can facilitate sales off-the-plan is going to be good for business. This will assist developers to progress with important projects, and improve certainty and clarity for purchasers as well. It is very important for off-the-plan purchasers to know what they are buying and that they receive what they expect; that is why the disclosure statements are there.
The arrangements for the termination of Unit Title Schemes are also important. As the Attorney-General noted in her second reading speech, there are at present few, if any, options for the closure and termination of Unit Title Schemes under the current statutes. This is another important element, because I know a number of prospective developments have been halted under the current scheme because, out of 100 unit title holders, you might get one holding out, and it stops everyone else from moving forward with the development that everyone wants. What we need to have is a reform that deals with this requirement as well. They provide sensible flexibility and lay out appropriate provisions for scheme termination and dispute resolution when required.
The provisions recognise fully the rights and responsibilities of individual lot holders, while allowing scheme terminations to proceed if an overwhelming majority of owners, 90% or more, wish to take such action, providing that the scheme is more than 20 years old. So there is a maturity provision, if you like, within these termination arrangements.
Better allocation of common property where it is relevant, for car parking and other requirements has been raised and has been incorporated in the bill. I know the former member for Greatorex, if he was here, would love it, because he introduced a bill into this parliament on the basis that someone stole his parking lot at his unit, and he did not like that at all. We must send him a copy of this bill and my speech recognising his contribution in the light of this legislation.
Allowing the Northern Territory Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in relation to the termination and amalgamation of subdivision schemes is also a good move and will assist in ensuring fairness and clarity.
The provision for the appointment of a Statutory Unit Titles Scheme Supervisor, within the administering agency, will allow advice and assistance in relation to the application of the provision. Member for Fong Lim, this is something which will give support to those who have questions, and expert support. This will help developers and purchasers, especially when novel or non-standard approaches are being explored and proposed. So, here we are supporting innovation – we are cutting red tape, increasing flexibility and supporting innovation. This is a fantastic bill, and I support it fully.
As honourable members will note, the bill, which incorporates the valuable input and responses received from developers in the community, has been drafted to achieve flexibility, simplicity and certainty, while creating the capacity to respond to market changes and developments.
Madam Speaker, we have listened and we are responding with suitable, sensible, relevant reforms which will underpin the continued rapid and orderly development of the Territory, particularly in relation to the larger scale and long-term staged development. This not only has a positive impact for developers, this has a positive impact for our economy.
These larger scale developments, like the waterfront, need this type of legislation to proceed in this way and have the complex, staged developments that has been proposed for them. The waterfront is one development. It is a very important development and from memory it is over 15 years, a considerable time. This provides that type of development flexibility to proceed. It is important for us to continue to listen to further input on these matters, and take additional valuable input into account.
I am pleased to support the Unit Titles Scheme and commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward these important reforms, whilst also acknowledging other members. The member for Nelson and the member for Fong Lim have committee stage questions and that is quite reasonable given the complexity of what we are attempting here. In other words, we have a new scheme and we are making provisions for continuation of the old scheme, plus some extra provisions about terminating unit title schemes. It is complex but I believe it is the right way forward, the necessary way forward and makes our legislation contemporary. Madam Speaker, I support this bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge that the member for Goyder said that the opposition would, on the whole, be supporting the legislation, which accords with the indication we had from the Opposition Leader of Business. I know that is in direct contrast to the comments made by the member for Fong Lim, but we are used to getting mixed signals from the members opposite.
I sincerely thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and for his questions, and for genuinely trying to engage in what we all admit and recognise is very complex law, but is necessary in providing for the opportunity for those large, multilayered and multifaceted developments which are very much becoming the contemporary style of development, not just in the Territory, but across the nation and the world.
Our existing Unit Titles Act was not able to accommodate the complexity and the nature of the new developments we see coming through. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, after many years - this has been on the books since 1 March 2001 when the then Attorney-General, Denis Burke, remarked in a closing debate on building lot bills that this was the first step in reforming the laws relating to group titles - well, here we are in 2009, and we have this legislation before us. Whilst the member for Goyder would say that this has been rushed, some of us who know the history of this legislation know it has been an arduous and long path to reach the point where we actually had a comprehensive Unit Titles Scheme Bill to introduce at the last sittings, and seek to pass it at these sittings.
There have been significant discussion drafts going out as early as 2001. They have evolved over time and I am pleased to report to the House that the evolution has centred on trying to adopt better contemporary practice, protection for consumers purchasing off-the-plan, which is a matter the member for Nelson quite appropriately raised, but also providing for the workability the industry is seeking.
This legislation was not approved by Cabinet until I could absolutely guarantee support of both the Property Council and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, and we have that support in writing. So for the member for Fong Lim to try to parade this as something that would be a burden on the property industry shows he is completely out of touch with their position in this regard.
The member for Goyder was somewhat confused. The issues and concerns she raised in her contribution went to the draft bill that were actually picked up by the government, taken on board in terms of listening to industry so the bill we have before us has captured the concerns of industry raised at the time, the issues the member for Goyder put on the public record tonight, and they are contained in this contemporary legislation we have before us.
Yes, it is extremely complex because developments of this nature are extremely complex and when you need to capture the interest of the consumer, and equally capture the needs of the developers and, also how bodies corporate will function as well, by its nature it is required to be complex because these are all very complex matters.
During my second reading speech I outlined the history of the unit titles developments and legislative changes that occurred as a result of the changing nature of these types of developments in the Territory. We know that, currently, the legislation presents both challenges and complexities for developers, but we believe there is room for reducing the complexity, for improving the consumer protection, and for reducing the regulatory burden which is why we have the Unit Titles Scheme Bill before today. Developers of new major developments actually sought changes to have Northern Territory legislation provide for similar options which are available in other jurisdictions, and that is what this legislation today captures.
The extensive consultation, as I said, really started in 2001 and changed significantly after the Labor government came to power. Further rounds of consultations commenced in 2005 with the establishment of the Property and Commercial Law Task Force by the then Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Peter Toyne. The task force comprised representatives from both the conveyancing professions and the various occupations; it provided a report to government with its recommendations and this bill, together with the Land Title and Related Legislation Amendment Act 2008 genuinely implements the recommendations of that task force. So, it has been evolved from the task force that represents the industry with the expertise of the property and commercial law task force at the heart of it.
Further targeted consultation occurred during the development of the bill. We consulted with small groups of lawyers identified as having particular expertise and practical experience in unit titles issues, and they also provided input into this bill. We then released the draft bill in November 2008, not at Christmas; some of us actually work in November. Seminars were held - so it was not released and ‘let us just hide and pretend it is not out there’ - in both Darwin and Alice Springs for the public and also for the various professional and occupational groups which followed the release of the draft bill. The groups engaged included real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers, surveyors and body corporate managers.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the government listened, we responded, we made changes to the discussion draft of the bill and that is why we have the bill before us in the Chamber today, which we believe provides a new way for creating unit titles, and a contemporary way to meet the needs of both consumers and developers. It provides the same conceptual legal and operational basis for all unit title developments which replaces the complex red tape, if you like, but it replaces the multitude of processes that currently exist for the various unit title developments. There is clearly a reduction of red tape contained within this, acknowledging its complex legislation.
The new single scheme replaces the four methods that currently exist. The scheme addresses the concerns, as I said, of the consumers and it is critically important to this government as well as the developers so we can encourage the developments which provide housing options for Territorians. The scheme fundamentally responds to the need for reform in this area and, as I said, the reforms started in March 2001 and here we are today.
So when a developer is selling land off-the-plan, the scheme provides for appropriate disclosure of information; that is selling units prior to the time when the title for the unit is created. A developer will be guided by general principles about how, and the period when, they have control of a new body corporate, they enter into contracts, body corporate managers, letting agents and service contractors.
The scheme enables by-laws to be made, including by-law offences which can be enforced by the body corporate. It provides for exclusive use by-laws. It also commits current land title developments to opt into the new legislation. So you can opt into this and some developers, we have been advised, intend to do this for the immediate benefits of those exclusive use by-laws and the certainty of arrangements concerning body corporate managers, letting agents and service contractors which this bill provides.
The act will commence on such a day or days as determined by the Administrator, but what the government intends to do is to make a committee stage amendment to ensure the commencement of the legislation is clear, and to allow for a staged commencement.
Consultation is continuing with stakeholders as the regulations necessary for the operation of the legislation are developed. That is critical. Draft regulations relating to land titles, management modules, and land development are available from the Department of Justice. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is also preparing regulations which will govern the planning issues. Following the enactment and completion of the regulations, question and answer guides on aspects of the legislation will be available, and also seminars will be provided to industry groups. So, the fact sheets requested by the member from Nelson are being developed and will be available. The government is ensuring we go to the full extent required to provide simple, accurate advice to consumers, developers, real estate agents, and conveyancers. There are many people involved in this sector.
Madam Speaker, there are significant and different features of this bill that the former Attorney-General who had carriage of this legislation for a long time - I want to go on record to thank him for all the effort he put into this - he met with industry groups, and I have picked it up at the end of what has been a very lengthy process. The member for Johnston explained key features of the bill, and we will be going into committee stage. I understand the concerns of the member for Nelson with the new section regarding the 90% of unit holders making decisions, but we put some safety aspects in there for protection. Industry wanted it to apply at a far lower percentage and without the safety mechanisms we put in there to protect the right of the consumer. Whilst industry will say we have not gone far enough, I recognise the concerns of the member for Nelson regarding how far you go. However, we did need to provide a mechanism that really does deal with the impasses that occur from time to time. Ultimately, as you heard the Minister for Business say, there are legal avenues through the Supreme Court as well.
We believe we have the checks and balances in there and we paid very close attention to providing the checks and balances. We all want to king of our particular castle, and there are inherent rights that reside in that aspect. The amendments are only technical in their nature, but it does afford the opportunity for members to ask some quite specific questions regarding the act. However, regarding the Unit Titles Act, anyone covered by that act currently can stay, or they transfer into coverage of this one. Those unit developments that already have planning approval can remain under the old Units Titles Act, but new developments would come in under this new act. That is the transition path the government has decided upon.
If people decide to stay under the old Unit Titles Act they will have operation of both the acts applying in the Territory. We felt that was the fairest way to approach the issue of the existing rights and operations people have. There are plenty of incentives in this act for people who want to transfer over if that is the path they choose to go down. We think we will see - as we have had some indications from industry - some taking the opportunities which exist in this act. It will provide certainty going forward into the future in unit developments and provide not just the critical issues of governance and disclosure of what people are really purchasing into, but also government’s arrangements for bodies corporate and how they operate. It will also provide the flexibility the development community has been seeking in the different strata titles that exist.
It is contemporary legislation. It is complex by nature because we are dealing in a complex area of property law here. That being said, I believe the government has genuinely gone through a highly consultative process to produce legislation which industry says it accepts, and also enshrines far more contemporary practice and better protection for consumers than currently exists in the Territory.
I sincerely thank the officers in Justice and in DPI in the years of work it has taken to get to this stage, and there are also many professionals out there who have had input.
Madam Speaker, when we go into the committee stage I will answer questions specifically.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Unit Title Schemes Bill 2009 (Serial 35), together with schedule of amendments No 10 circulated by the Minister for Planning and Lands.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, would it be more sensible for me to put forward those clauses I wish to address now, so you know where I am going?
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: For your information, I am looking at clause 15, clause 45, clause 79, clause 111 and clause 146(q).
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, for assistance I would propose given that the member for Nelson has indicated clause 15, we could move to clause 10 and I could move my amendment. If that proceeds, we could then move to specific clauses.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 10.1: clause 2(1) omit ‘Part’ and substitute ‘Act’. The amendment corrects a technical problem with clause 2, the commencement clause in the legislation. As presently worded, it is likely that all of the provisions of the legislation, other than Part 2 and clauses 142, 147, 149, 152, 163, 166 to 168, and 174 will commence operation on assent. This amendment ensures that all of the provisions other than sections 142, 147, 149, 152, 163, 166 to 168, and 174 commence on the day or days fixed in accordance with a commencement notice published in the Northern Territory Government Gazette.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 10.2: clause 5, after heading insert the words ‘In this Act:’ at the beginning of clause 5. The amendment is a technical amendment that makes it clear that the definitions in the clause are definitions to be used for the act as a whole.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: It refers to clause 109. It is not a clause that either of the parties has an issue with, is my understanding, so I could move it or we could wait.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson is nodding so I think we can move.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 10.3: clause 109, definition commencement, omit ‘this Part’ and substitute ‘section 109’. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the different provisions in Part 4.3 to be commenced on separate days. As presently drafted this would be difficult because the term ‘commencement’ is defined by reference to commencement of the part as a whole. Commencement of the part as a whole only takes place when all of the provisions have commenced.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I could do the last technical amendment and we could go on with specific answers on specific clauses, if that is the wish of the committee.
Madam CHAIR: That is a good plan, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 10.4: clause 135 - proposed section 54A(2) of the Land Titles Act after ‘section 65(2) insert ‘of the Unit Title Schemes Act’. This makes it clear that the reference in the Land Titles Act whose section 65(2) is a reference to the provision in the Unit Title Schemes Act rather than to section 65(2) of the Land Title Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you had some questions.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my questions are in relation to section 15(b)(ii) and 15(b)(iii). In relation to 15(b)(ii) ‘the scheme has existed for at least 20 years after the commencement of this Act;’. I am probably jumping to another section of the act, but the section of the act is section 111 where you talk about transition from the exiting Unit Titles Act to the Unit Titles Scheme Act. If you move from the old act to the new act, where does the 20 years start - from when?
Ms LAWRIE: Literally as it says: ‘from the commencement of this act’.
Mr WOOD: So for some units or some blocks of flats which have been in existence for 20 years under the old act, they cannot use that 20-year term to fit into this scheme here?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right. It is another 20 years.
Mr WOOD: In relation to subsection 15(b)(iii), which allows units to be demolished and the land used for something else. Take the case of a family or older people; say there are 100 units, some 90% of the people say yes to demolition and there might be 10 units left over with people in them who are in their 70s or 80s, and all of a sudden the younger people in the area think these flats are too out-of-date, they are not modern, and want them pulled down. What protection is there for those people who do not want to go anywhere else? They have lived there a good part of their lives. They might be close to the shops, and they are paying the money they can afford for the units they are living in. What happens to those people? Are they just simply tossed out and told to go and find another place to live, or is there some protection for those people?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I am advised the management modules will provide for just terms.
Mr WOOD: Then I probably have to work back the system and say: how are those management modules being agreed upon? I have to flick over to section 94. Will there be a protection in the setting up of those modules? Does it mean the modules could be put together in such a way that they did not have that protection built in them? Do these modules require a vote on them, or are they just done by the owner of the land? If that protection is not within the management module, then you still do not have any protection for those people who might lose their homes. How do we make sure those protections you are talking about are in the management module?
Ms LAWRIE: The management modules, I am advised, will be regulations. Those regulations for the management modules will go out as drafts to industry and consumers alike, just as we did with the consultation for the legislation. They will be created with contemporary best practice by the Department of Justice; put out as drafts; we will seek comment on them. It will be a requirement for me, as the minister with carriage, to give ultimate approval to the management modules. I am advised by Justice that it is definitely an ambition that what goes out as drafts will ensure the management modules provide for just terms.
Mr WOOD: Am I right in my belief that although you can set up some regulations in regard to management modules, a person can apply to make their own specific management module? Am I right, or do they have to be prescriptive according to the regulations?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised an individual can make a management module, but the Statutory Supervisor would have to give their approval to it.
Mr WOOD: The Statutory Supervisor is who?
Ms LAWRIE: A senior officer of the Department of Justice.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to the management modules, why is the developer the best person to choose the management module, given the fact that once a building is completed and sold off, the vast majority of developers have little, if anything, to do with that property in the future?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, I am advised that the regulations provide for the management modules so, for example, if it is for a development of four units, then the management modules designed for four units would apply.
Mr TOLLNER: So, what you are saying is that the developer does not choose the management module? Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: Correct.
Mr WOOD: Could I move back to clause 45 which is the Disclosure Statement? As I said, minister, I am very interested in seeing this in legislation, but I hope it continues in a broader form. There was one area there …
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, member for Nelson, just a point of clarification. Are we still going to go back to deal with clause 15?
Mr WOOD: No, sorry, I have finished with clause 15.
Ms LAWRIE: To keep track, I want to mark them off as we go, if that is all right.
Mr WOOD: That is okay.
Ms LAWRIE: So, clause 45?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I move onto clause 45 in relation to disclosure statements. In your second reading in relation to this, you said:
That is the clause in here which gives some protection to costs that come afterwards. Is there anything in there that says if that figure is nowhere near what it should be - if someone deliberately said the cost is $100, but it is $1 - the developer has disclosed as required by the Registrar-General, but he has underestimated, perhaps, on purpose. Is there any penalty for that occurring?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that in that situation the purchaser has the right to cancel the contract.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. I would like to go on to clause 79 which is Method of voting; just a point of clarification. Clause 79(4) says:
If one person owned five units, do they get five votes? Is that how it works?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Why is it written that way? Why is it not a motion is passed by unanimous resolution if the number of votes counted is the maximum number of votes? Why is it put in this phraseology in favour of the motion as equal to the total number of the units?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that was the drafting advice we have received.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask on what grounds the drafting advice was given? It is an explanation that is about an explanation.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I guess it gets down to the debates we normally have in here about the way Parliamentary Counsel decides what is the best drafting form to provide for the most certainty and clarity of the description. In this case, the issue of unanimous resolution, they are really meaning a vote where there is 100% voting support for all units.
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying. I just wondered if you could ring up the drafter and ask why it has that been put in such a manner. However, I will move on.
The issue I raised earlier in the debate was that of clause 79(7) in relation to an ordinary resolution. In clause 79(7)(a)(ii) it says:
What are the contribution entitlements? I tried to understand it from previously in the act. What does that have to do with an ordinary resolution?
Ms LAWRIE: The contribution entitlements represent the share of the running costs paid by the owner. It is designed to protect the rights of people who are paying the most and who have the most invested.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify that: if you are contributing more, you get more votes? Is that how it works?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, that is a fair description.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask another, maybe, silly question? How do they work out how many votes you get? Does that come under something like a good management module, or is there a formula for working that out?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that sections 39(3), 39(4), 39(5)(a) and 39(5)(b) sets it out.
Mr WOOD: No wonder I could not understand it, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: I remind you, member for Nelson, we are going to do fact sheets for people.
Mr WOOD: I think we will need them. I remember reading section 2 on entitlement, a unit entitlement mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) must be a whole number other than nought. I would challenge the idea that nought is a number.
Ms LAWRIE: That is why it has to be ‘other than’.
Mr WOOD: You do not have anything yet. When you get nought runs, you have not scored any. But anyway, that is I suppose a drafting …
Ms LAWRIE: That is what we have ‘other than’.
Mr WOOD: I will look forward to some fact sheets on some of these. People who may be in the business, fair enough, but for someone who is not particularly confident with some of this legislation - in my case, when people come to see me about this, I certainly would welcome some material that explains this is in layman’s language so we can help people who are battling with it.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, just further to that. I said fact sheets in my reply, but also specific training will be held and seminars.
Mr WOOD: I will come for the training.
Mr TOLLNER: I will just backtrack. I will get back to where we are now; but can you tell me exactly why we do not have one Unit Title Act; why we now have to have two?
Ms LAWRIE: The advice I have received is that it is to try to capture the contemporary practice contained in this legislation. The old overly-regulated legislation would have made the legislation, on the whole, far more complicated. The Unit Titles Act has four different schemes running through it, and this is one scheme legislation.
Mr TOLLNER: Surely, if you have that number of schemes running through the existing act, it would not have been difficult to add another scheme and apply many of the same definitions and descriptions. For instance, in this bill there is the ability for resolutions without dissent, where as in the Unit Titles Act, I believe it just refers to unanimous resolution. There are management module descriptions that tend to be contrary to what is in the Unit Titles Act.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, you are reading from the draft bill, which is different to the bill before us. All of those definitions have been picked up and been made similar in the two bills. You are going off the draft bill which is different to this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Correct me if I am wrong, in this bill it talks about resolutions without dissent. Is there a similar definition in the Unit Titles Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I turn to clause 165, which may help you. Clause 165 amends the Unit Titles Act to put in the same methods of voting as exist in the Unit Titles Schemes Bill before us.
Mr TOLLNER: So the Unit Titles Act reflects this?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: So we are now amending the Unit Titles Act with this legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: That is what this clause does.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, that satisfies me in that regard. What about other areas of conflict that arise that mean you could not incorporate the two into the one act? Where are those areas?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that all the areas you may be referring to, that were identified by the industry, were incorporated into this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: That was not actually my question. My question was: what areas are in conflict between the two acts that means the two acts could not have been incorporated into the one?
Ms LAWRIE: It is in planning stages for example; it is around the disclosure provisions that sit in this act that do not sit in the old act. Anyone who has been involved in the development of this act and understands the contemporary practice contained in this act versus the old Unit Titles Act would be fully aware of a range of differences. In all sincerity, I am happy for you to get a briefing from the officers of the Department of Justice who can take you through the differences between the Unit Titles Act and the Unit Titles Scheme bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to this sort of thing. I am not exactly familiar with contemporary legislation or the old legislation. All I am asking you, as the minister, is if you can highlight to me just some areas where there is required to be difference that could not be incorporated in a single act? Just a few.
Ms LAWRIE: I gave you two examples in my previous response.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry. Start again. Which two examples were they?
Ms LAWRIE: I gave you examples of the relationship with the Planning Act. I also gave you …
Mr TOLLNER: All right, stop there.
Ms LAWRIE: I also gave you the example of the disclosure requirements in purchasing off-the-plan.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. In relation to the disclosure requirements purchasing off-the-plan – what does that mean? Where is the difference in the two acts; and why do they have to be different?
Ms LAWRIE: As stated in the second reading speech, as well as the contribution by the member for Johnston, as the member for Nelson would know, there are no disclosures in the current act and no ability to make such disclosures retrospectively in a current act. We have those disclosure provisions in this new act which is one part of the many changes that we are making in terms of unit titles in this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Why couldn’t the old act be reformed to reflect that?
Ms LAWRIE: I just explained about retrospectivity.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, what was that? You can make retrospective legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: I just explained about the requirement to make aspects retrospective in the last act and there is – it is something Cabinet ministers come up against all the time - retrospectivity is not something you would apply to existing law unless it is unavoidable. It goes to issues such as fairness; people created developments under the existing Unit Titles Act to meet the requirements of that act. This act has different requirements, so it would be unfair to retrospectively apply matters to them which did not apply originally. In the creation of law, you avoid that all costs. That is a fundamental tenet of making law. That is why, in looking at the issues industry and consumers brought to government, it was clear and fair to create the Units Titles Scheme Bill, which we have before us, to set the standards from here. We have also provided the opportunity for people to transition from where they are currently under the Units Titles Act to this more contemporary Units Titles Schemes Bill.
Mr TOLLNER: The issue of retrospectivity would surely apply to the way votes are determined by unanimous resolutions or resolutions without dissent. Why is it possible to apply that and not apply what you have just spoken about?
Ms LAWRIE: Industry sought those reforms.
Mr TOLLNER: So, what you are saying is if industry sought other reforms, such as the merging of the two acts, you would look at it?
Ms LAWRIE: Industry sought those reforms; they are dispute settling procedures. They are for future disputes not for disputes that have previously occurred. By their nature they are not retrospective; they are about how you proceed in the future.
Mr TOLLNER: They are not necessarily just dispute settling abilities. A unanimous resolution can mean quite a lot for the owner of a unit who does not want to see a large rubbish bin, for instance, or a sewerage system put right next door to their unit. They might see that the requirements of a unanimous resolution may give them some ability to stop that. Which is not the same as a resolution without dissent; they may well see it as a watering down of their rights. It is not just dispute resolution. You cannot respond to that?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered you. You are just quibbling.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to unit boundaries, would you explain what changes were made to the draft that outlines exactly what are the body corporate responsibilities and what are not?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised the legislation is not designed to tell you who owns which pipe; I am advised if it is within the common boundary of the unit development, then the body corporate manages it.
Mr TOLLNER: So you would admit that it is very ambiguous in relation to who is responsible for, as you said, pipework, doors, maybe awnings, and the like?
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously doors and awnings are within the common boundary. Pipework is one of those very difficult issues.
Mr TOLLNER: I am advised that there are body corporate managers who have different rules for different buildings. In many places you can have multiple body corporate managers operating. One body corporate manager may agree that doors are part of the responsibility of the body corporate, and others may deem them to be the responsibility of the owner. In relation to pipework, who is responsible where there is one single meter to a building? I am talking about the pipework inside the unit, for instance. Is it the responsibility of the unit owner, or is it the responsibility of the body corporate? The point I am making here, minister, is this legislation is very ambiguous in this regard.
Ms LAWRIE: The advice I received is that, in consultation with body corporate representatives, they recognise you cannot, with any legislation, prevent one body corporate having a different interpretation of what they are going to manage to another body corporate. What is enshrined in this legislation are methods for bodies corporate to deal with any issues that arise for the body corporate. One of the other aspects is the bodies corporate will be participating in advice regarding the fact sheets which are going out.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to real estate managers, they are required to hold a real estate licence. Body corporate managers are required to hold a real estate licence because they are dealing with trust monies. What is the situation where you have self-managed bodies corporate? Is the self-managed body corporate required to have a real estate licence?
Ms LAWRIE: The self-managed body corporate is not required to have a real estate licence.
Mr TOLLNER: Is the self-managed body corporate required to have a trust account?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Mr WOOD: Moving on to clause 111 which deals with the conversion of the units plan or building development into this new planning scheme. I would like to know whether there has to be a vote taken before the unit title holders who come under the old scheme move into the new Unit Titles Act. In other words, who makes that decision to swap from one act to the other act?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that is one of the outstanding issues. That is why it is actually proposed that the commencement of this provision be deferred for six to 12 months. This will permit time to get the new legislation operational before making decisions about how to apply the new legislation to the old schemes.
Mr TOLLER: I take it, minister, that process would require costs. I imagine that in the next six to 12 months you will determine who will be responsible for those costs?
Ms LAWRIE: The only cost would be the application fee.
Mr WOOD: Still in the same area. Can you point me to where it says you have the transition period of six to 12 months? Is that written in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. That is a policy decision which has been made regarding the workability and the tranches in which aspects of this legislation can come to be.
Mr WOOD: Is that written anywhere here or is it just a …
Ms LAWRIE. No, it is not in the act.
Mr TOLLNER: How can we trust you, minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not going to dignify that with a response.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I remind you, you did say Bellamack would be selling off houses early this year not so long ago. All of a sudden, that has changed. How can we be certain that in six to 12 months we will get this done?
Ms LAWRIE: How could you?
Mr WOOD: Moving along to clause 146. This is in relation to changes to the Planning Act. I refer to the second reading speech by the minister. On page 3 of the speech, it said:
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask within that. Is the Australian Building Code something the Territory government has signed up to? I am talking here about five-star energy rated houses. Or, if not, why is it stated in the second reading?
Ms LAWRIE: It is certainly something the Territory government is committed to in regard to the COAG process. Where that is currently at is still in the realms of industry consultation, but we are, in a COAG sense, certainly committed to it.
Mr WOOD: Well, you know my opinion on five-star energy houses for the tropics.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to say that the reason we are in consultation is to create a design that works for the tropics and, similarly, to have a design that works for Central Australia.
Mr WOOD: I am just reminding the government what I think.
Ms LAWRIE: I agree with you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I presume this section 146(q), which states ‘for a proposed subdivision of land on which a building is or will be situated’ etcetera, is referring to what you mentioned in your second reading speech. If that is correct, why is it being done, and what was wrong with the old system?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that this section triggers, if you like, the planning in the sense that you are dealing with walls as boundaries; they are not walls within the development but the actual boundary itself, so in that sense it is seen as a definition of a subdivision.
Mr WOOD: Basically, this is just a specialist clause for this bill. It does not apply anywhere else?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right.
Mr WOOD: I have exhausted all the questions I could find. There are probably more questions if I went through this again and again, but I think I would go a bit silly.
I will be looking forward to the fact sheets, and I hope the government advertises the seminars because it would be important for most parliamentarians to be involved in them; even if we had one for the parliamentarians. This is a common way in which people live these days and they do bring up complications. It would be good for parliamentarians to know how the system works, just as we have to know how the Planning Act works; I see it as an extension of that. I look forward to those seminars.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, member for Nelson. I will commit to provide packs of the fact sheets to all 25 electorate offices. Yes, the seminars will be advertised, but we will also alert you specifically to them.
Mr TOLLNER: Great news, minister, that there are to be seminars. Can you just inform me whether the supervisor for the act and the scheme will be the same person?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it will be a senior Department of Justice official.
Mr TOLLNER: When will this person be named?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised in a month to six weeks, when the act is expected to commence.
Mr TOLLNER: I have exhausted everything I wanted to ask. It is unfortunate the minister could not be better informed on her own legislation. In any case, I am not completely satisfied that it is without needless regulations and legislation. You certainly have not convinced me it cannot be in one act and that the whole thing does not need reforming. Given the fact that many in the community say they support it in principle, we will have to deal with it and see what comes in the future.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process, listening to the minister try to explain something she clearly is not completely across. I have not altered my views on this legislation at all; it is quite obviously complex. Every speaker who spoke on the bill referred to its complexity and that, I have to say, sends shivers down my spine. The more complex you make things the more open to dispute they are. And there is no lack of complexity in this legislation.
I do not think it fits particularly well with the current Unit Titles Act. If it did fit well with the current Unit Titles Act, we would have just reformed the current Unit Titles Act, but that is not what we have done. We have created completely new legislation, something that is complex, something that is open to debate, and there will be many matters stemming from this legislation which will tie up the courts and cost many people significant amounts of money.
I find this whole thing distasteful, particularly when yesterday we had the minister telling us how his government always had an eye on cutting through red tape, removing road blocks, and getting rid of needless regulation. He genuinely seemed to believe what he was saying.
It reinforces my point that we need a regulation relief review advisory committee with people picked from industry bodies around the Territory who can provide frank and fearless advice to government. The motion was put on the table yesterday, it was discussed and it seemed to me there were not many reasons why government would not adopt such a measure. But government and the minister said no; they have all the answers. They have things in place to make sure there is a limited amount of regulation; that apart from people being safe and secure regulation was kept to a minimum; they always had their eye on situations that could arise and they would always try to reform areas where there is confusion, red tape and increased costs for business.
Here we are, not 24 hours later in this Chamber, passing legislation that is complex, cumbersome, full of red tape, and will open up a whole range of people to court actions and will cost many people a lot of money. I find it disappointing in the extreme. I condemn the minister for introducing this legislation and for not driving the department harder; for not taking the time to put in place significant reforms to the existing act which would have seen the existing act made suitable across the board. It takes hard work and dedication, I understand that but, unfortunately, hard work and dedication to a particular cause is something that does not agree with this particular minister. She has shown it on a number of occasions; she is sloppy with her words; she is sloppy with her work. We see it in a range of areas – Lands and Planning. Now we see it here. It just never stops.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim address his remarks through the Chair, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is convention regarding the third reading debate. The issue can only raise matters new, subject to the legislation debate that has been held. He is simply having a weird political rant in direct contravention to third reading debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately I did not hear the entire debate. Member for Fong Lim, if you can just contain your comments. You only have five minutes to go.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker, I apologise. I was not looking at you, but I was always directing my comments through you.
As I was saying, and I have not said previously in this debate, this legislation is emblematic of the sloppy way this minister goes about her work. She is very sloppy; she does not have an eye for detail; she does not consider the wider ramifications of anything. I use the example of Bellamack. She is sloppy with her words.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Fong Lim that this is a third reading debate on the Unit Titles Scheme Bill. It has nothing to do with any grief he has in the round of political stunts that he failed to achieve with his party today at Question Time, and me. It is a debate about this legislation. Bellamack has nothing to do with this legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: The third reading speech, member for Fong Lim, is meant to have no introduction of any new material and must be directly related to the bill. Please continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate your advice there.
As I was saying about the person who introduced it and had carriage of this legislation, namely the Acting Chief Minister in this particular case, what I was saying about the legislation is that it is sloppy and it is complex. Every single speaker during the debate spoke on the complexity of it, how difficult it was to understand, to read and interpret; the confusion that was created because it seems to be, in many cases, in conflict with an existing act of parliament. All of those things are emblematic of the attitude this particular minister takes to her job. She is sloppy with her language …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, please contain your comments to the actual bill in front of us. It is a third reading debate. It is not the second reading debate.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the bill. I am talking about the bill, specifically, and the minister who has carriage of the bill is inextricably linked to this bill. It is the reason why this bill is complex. It is the reason why this bill will create confusion in the real world. It is the reason why our courts will be further clogged up with unnecessary adjudications. It is the reason why business people will be spending large amounts of money seeking advice. That is the reason!
This minister is the reason why all of these problems will occur down the track. In a few months time this minister will have to answer to people who own units, who manage units, who are trying to develop units, and explain to them why we have such complex laws in the Northern Territory. It is particularly galling, as I said, when not 24 hours ago we were talking about trying to relieve regulations and the burden of regulation …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer has raised this issue a number of times. Just reading from the House of Representatives Practice it is protocol that third reading speeches are: ‘not in order to reopen or repeat debate on matters discussed on the motion for the second reading’. It also says it is: ‘limited to the contents of the bill’. This debate should be limited to the contents of the bill. This member is being repetitious. He has made his political point and we need to get on with business in this House.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted another 10 minutes by this House to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in a third reading debate, member for Braitling. Continue your speech and contain it to the bill, member for Fong Lim, or I will ask you to resume your seat immediately.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I was not certain that I could squeeze another 10 minutes out of you. I might be howled down if I was allowed another 10 minutes. The minister over here has just highlighted to me the fact that they try to gag debate; they do not want comment on this legislation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You just said to the member for Fong Lim ‘contain your comments to the bill’ as is required by convention, and he starts to talk on the subject of gagging debate, which this clearly is not.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have a very short period of time. Just talk about the bill and then resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, we have been sold a pig in a poke with this bill. It is disgusting legislation, and the minister should hang her head in shame.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: For the information of honourable members and the purpose of clarification of the procedural arrangements at 9 pm tonight and the conduct of the adjournment of the Assembly, I advise as follows:
Honourable members will be aware that in November 2008, the Assembly adopted the recommendations contained in a report of the Standing Orders Committee for new procedures for the automatic adjournment of the Assembly, now contained in new Standing Order 41A. In subsequent discussions conducted in the Standing Orders Committee, opposition members raised a number of matters relating to the programming of proceedings, in particular the conduct of discussions of MPIs in the operation of the new standing order.
Following discussions in the committee, I now advise that the following procedures guidelines were agreed to for the operation of the new Standing Order 41A:
I also advise that I propose to administer the conduct of the adjournment of the Assembly in line with the agreed arrangement until further notice. I also point out the above arrangements are consistent with long-standing practice of this Assembly relating to the discretion of the Speaker.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I make a statement that I believe will give great heart to many Territorians, and many Australians, who want a cleaner environment and believe this is possible with little financial incentive and an entrepreneurial spirit.
Last month, I joined the Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay, and the member for Nelson in announcing the Territory will be moving towards its own container deposit scheme or, as we have called it, Cash for Containers. Put simply, a container deposit scheme requires beverage manufacturers to add a deposit and handling fee to beverage products sold in cans, bottles and cartons. Consumers may redeem the deposit by returning empty containers to collection depots. The deposit encourages people not to litter and it rewards those in the community who make the extra effort to clean up after those who, regretfully, cannot be bothered.
Government’s announcement marks a substantial policy shift and a historic day for those who have argued passionately about this over many years. I am sure the member for Nelson and the member for Fannie Bay will agree that it certainly feels like we are embarking on something quite special for Territorians. I say this because the debate surrounding something as simple as container deposit legislation, or CDL, has taken on quite epic proportions over the years. It is now more than 30 years since South Australia enacted its legislation; the second in the world. In the intervening decades, no other Australian jurisdiction has followed South Australia’s lead.
This simple measure has instead been the subject of endless technical analysis and reports. Some say CDL is good, while alternative analysis suggests otherwise and, in the end, nothing happens, no decisions are made. Government has departed from this script. Many in this Chamber will be aware that government did have a close look at CDL a few years ago as, I believe, did the opposition when they were in government. We were certainly attracted by container deposit, but the analyses seemed conflicting. At the time, government took the position the best path forward was to push for the adoption of CDL nationally, and to learn more about how CDL might operate locally. Over the last few years, we have done just that.
Under a successful Environment Grants Program, government has funded a number of projects aimed at supporting voluntary container deposit efforts. Pilot schemes, for example, were established in Alice Springs, Lajamanu and Titjikala. The Alice Springs trial saw more than 450 000 containers returned in less than three months. The trial in Lajamanu reported a return of just under 100 000 beverage containers in a year. The community embraced the trial and continues to work with the store to offer a refund on containers sold.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my predecessors were also successful in bringing CDL to the attention of environment ministers across the nation. Through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, research and analysis has been commissioned but, unfortunately, progress has been slow and is suffering from the same heretically-based approach that has seen 30 years of inaction. It has become clear, from a national perspective, the same old script is rolling out again, and a decision is unlikely to be forthcoming for some years, if at all.
While national CDL remains a goal for us to aspire to, government is not willing to wait on the sidelines for more reports. Instead, I have taken the view that CDL is best looked at from the perspective of the real experience and results achieved. I have asked myself three simple questions: Does CDL do a good job of cleaning up litter from bottles and cans? Can it be successfully implemented? Can it co-exist with the beverage industry? Against these three simple criteria, the answer is clear. Jurisdictions across the world with container deposit schemes have much higher return rates for containers - in the order of 70% to 90% of the containers sold come back for refilling, recycling or disposal - and CDL jurisdictions have less litter from bottles and cans. South Australia, for example, has significantly less beverage container litter than any other jurisdiction, almost half that recorded in the Territory. Of the containers covered by CDL, the Territory has the second-highest litter levels of any jurisdiction, and above the national average.
Most importantly, jurisdictions with CDL have populations actively engaged in fixing the litter problem, not sitting back waiting for someone to do it or blaming others. CDL motivates behavioural change in a grassroots sense. It is not a policy with limited interest to all but a few committed environmentalists. From kids to mums and dads, everyone gets involved; which is a rare commodity, and it is a measure of its popularity that in the many places across the world where CDL is in place, very few jurisdictions have ever dismantled the scheme. Clearly, while not without challenges, we can get CDL up and running in the Territory. I might add the beverage industry has not gone bust in any CDL jurisdiction. You can still buy a bottle of lemonade or a can of beer in any of those places.
Government is convinced that, in principle, CDL can work for the Territory, and we want it in place by the beginning of 2011. As we move to the detailed design of the scheme, government will have three important design criteria in mind. We want a CDL system that is legally sound, financially sound and capable of implementation in both urban and remote parts of the Territory. I am very confident these conditions can be met. We do not believe there are any show stoppers and, as we progress, solutions can and will be found to deal with these criteria and any other issues which may emerge. The detailed design work is not a trivial or easy task and it will take some time.
I am aware there are some in the community who want CDL straightaway or are interpreting any delay as a wavering in government’s resolve. I can understand these sentiments, but let me be very clear - government intends to implement CDL. However, it is no one’s interest to rush and implement a scheme which is not sustainable.
It is on this point I have to express some concern with Alice Springs Town Council which has just announced an Alice Springs-based container return scheme. I express this concern not from any churlishness on my government’s part; I am the first to embrace such efforts if they help transition to a Territory-wide scheme. Critically, I note it will be ratepayers, whether they consume bottled beverages or not, who will be paying for the proposed Alice Springs scheme. The beverage industry will not be accepting any responsibility as is required in a legislated scheme. Bankrolling container returns in this way, while useful in a trial, does not provide a sustainable proposition.
Creating a local return scheme also introduces significant complexities and risks which are lessened or simply will not arise in the Territory-wide deposit scheme that government is developing. Most importantly, I do not believe council will be able to control an influx of containers from outside the town. Does council seriously believe it can limit this by only allowing Alice Springs residents to return containers? It will not work fairly; people outside Alice Springs will simply load up the ute and get a mate from Alice to get the cash. Can I just say, I have family who live on Aboriginal communities, and so do many other people, at Hermannsburg, Titjikala, and Santa Teresa; what is stopping those people from bringing in 500 containers to their family, and their family selling them in Alice Springs?
That is why we need to carefully and quickly move to a mandatory Territory-wide deposit scheme. While we can learn from South Australia, there will be some issues that even they have not had to address and where we will need to learn from the international experience or develop unique solutions for ourselves. Hawaii and Ontario, for example, implemented CDL quite recently and will provide a good contemporary experience to learn from. Canada’s Northwest Territory and the Yukon will provide experience of operating CDL over large areas with few people. Once we have resolved the design issues implementation will involve a number of important steps. For example:
legislation to establish the scheme needs to be developed and passed;
the community will rightly expect opportunity for input;
a materials coordinator needs to be established for the purpose of brokering the deposits and handling fees
between manufacturers and the collection depots;
a systematic compliance, accounting and auditing regime of materials and deposits needs to be developed to
ensure the financial and legal robustness of the scheme;
main collection depots need to be in place. Potentially, this will involve an expression of interest process;
a clear set of policies and standards for redeeming deposits needs to be developed to guide operations of
collection depots, which will then need to be licensed.
The materials coordinator will need to enter into financial arrangements with collection depots. Industry needs to change its labels and enter into arrangements with the materials coordinator, and a substantial community awareness program needs to be developed.
Achieving all this by 2011 will require hard work and careful planning. If we can get Cash for Containers in place before 2011, we will. Hawaii, for example, took over two years to get their CDL system up and running, so I do not believe 2011 is in any way an easy target. It will be tight.
To assist in these tasks and drive the necessary to be undertaken, I am very pleased the member for Nelson and the member for Fannie Bay have agreed to team up with me. As the Cash for Containers Reference Committee, we will be steering the interdepartmental arrangements which have been put in place to resolve the outstanding design issues for the scheme, and address implementation. As a committee, we have been very quick out of the blocks, we met for the first time the day after government publicly announced its decision in favour of CDL, and last week we had the pleasure of visiting South Australia to see firsthand how their scheme operates and to meet with government officials and the local recycling industry - not for the first time, in the case of member for Nelson.
I want to make it clear the reference committee is not in place to simply have another inquiry into the merits of CDL, or to produce another report. It is there to drive and guide the implementation of Cash for Containers in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, since we announced government’s policy shift on CDL, my office has received many offers of support and assistance from across Australia. The Premier of South Australia wrote to offer his assistance and, during our recent visit to that state, I was very grateful for the offers of assistance from government officials and the recycling industry. Companies with innovative technologies such as reverse vending machines offered support. My department has established a dedicated Cash for Containers website to keep everyone up to date and provide the community with an opportunity to register their support or interest in participating in the scheme.
I acknowledge that CDL is not universally supported. The beverage industry, for example, is on the record as opposing CDL. Over the coming months, the committee will be making every effort to have discussions with a range of industries, and I hope they will see there is more to be gained through dialogue than opposition and, with good will on both sides, we can develop a container deposit scheme that is of long-term value to the community in which they operate.
No doubt among both supporters and opponents of CDL, last month’s announcement will raise many questions. I want to briefly anticipate some of these and set the record straight from the outset.
First, the scheme will be aligned to South Australia in terms of the level of deposit - 10 - and I envisage at least the same beverage products and containers will be covered, including beer, soft drinks and flavoured milk. We will also be looking to see whether additional beverage products could be covered to address particular Territory circumstances. As we saw in South Australia, there are a few inconsistencies we would like to iron out and simplify in our scheme.
Second, I want to make it clear that shops will not be forced to redeem deposits although, if they choose to do so, this will be possible. In remote communities, experiences from our trials suggest community store operators may see benefits in offering this service.
Third, government is investigating the science to ensure financial viability of any new scheme. The scheme is not intended to be government run, with no expectations of government financial or overall operations.
Finally, while I understand the desire in the community for Cash for Containers to commence as soon as possible, there is no point in stockpiling containers now. This is critical to ensure the financial viability of the operations.
In closing, it would be remiss of me not to thank many people whose hard work and passion over 20 years, or so, has got us to this point today: the late George Brown, former Lord Mayor of Darwin; the late Andy McNeill, former Mayor of Alice Springs; Jim Forscutt, former Mayor of Katherine; Lorna Woods, former Executive Officer of Keep Australia Beautiful NT; Merv Meyer of Shoal Bay Recycling; the former member for Braitling, Loraine Braham; and the current member for Nelson.
At times over the years, the debate on CDL has had its fair share of rough and tumble. Today, we can put that aside and begin the journey which will see us join the many other jurisdictions across the world with container deposit schemes; places as diverse as Denmark, Israel, Kiribati, and 11 states in the United States, including California and Hawaii.
I do not pretend that Cash for Containers is going to fix all our litter problems. It will not. However, it is very effective for what it targets, and what it targets is clearly a big part of the problem. We should embrace those solutions which clearly work.
We can show a clean, green image to visitors who come to share our unique environment and lifestyle. It puts money into the pockets of people who do the right thing. Kids and community groups will have a chance to raise funds. In fact, I hope that collecting cans and bottles for a few dollars will be the first job many young Territory kids have, and that they get a taste of the rewards that come from a bit of hard work. In the end, that is what this is all about. It is more than just getting litter off our streets, as important as that is; it is about harnessing positive community attitudes so we do the right thing. In doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can all feel a bit stronger as a community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am excited! I am not here to talk about the benefits of CDL, except to say it is about more than just litter, it is also about recycling and reduction of landfill. I am here to say we are going full steam ahead and we have a lot of work to do. I would like to talk tonight about some of the issues we face.
I will give you an idea of how big a job this is going to be; I know some people thought it should have come on more quickly. I will read you this statement from the Australian Food and Grocery Council, which is the new Beverage Industry Environment Council. They issued this media release on 11 March 2009, which was headed ‘Chief Minister Henderson in the dark?’ It said:
At least they know we are about:
There you see part of the problem we are going to have. We have to be prepared to stand up to this group of people. The reason container deposit systems are not in Western Australia is primarily because of this powerful lobby group. They have infiltrated groups such as the Keep Australia Beautiful Council. They have their noses in local government associations. They know what they are about; they have the money to do it and we are going to have to really work hard to implement what we think is good for the Territory, not what we think is good for this particular industry.
I will give you an example of why some of this statement is wrong. When we were in South Australia, it was mentioned to us that the South Australian government also put in a submission to this national inquiry, and they mentioned one thing others had put in - possibly the Australian Food and Grocery Council - they added in a thing called ‘the inconvenience factor’. Now, this is one of those things you introduce to make sure something does not look sustainable. What they are saying is if you have to take your bottles and cans to a particular shed somewhere, you will have to go out of your way to do it, and to go out of your way to do it, we will put a value on that. That would be a negative value and that will add to the cost of the scheme. They do not say: ‘If you want to get a drink you have to go to a shop, and that is out of your way to get a drink’. No, no, they have invented this particular value simply to try to make the system look inefficient.
We have to be clever enough to stand up to this sort of tactic, which is primarily designed to convince the federal government not to introduce a national deposit scheme. So, if it does not happen, do not be surprised. I hope it does happen. In the meantime, I think we go full steam ahead, because I have heard about this National Profit Scheme for years; I have heard about these so-called packaging covenants, they have been around for years. They were like a blockage to talking about this type of thing.
This scheme we are looking at today, we should be determined to make sure it goes through, and I believe we will have all sides of parliament supporting it. I have spoken to the opposition shadow minister on these issues, and I believe he is 100% behind what we are doing. That does not mean he does not question things, but the philosophy of what we are trying to do is one I know he supports. How we get to this goal? Well, it will require different points of view; otherwise we will not come up with the best solution.
I would like to look at some of the issues we need to address if we are really to move ahead with this. We need to get Northern Territory industry onside. We do not have those manufacturing industries they are talking about down south, but we do have our local industries. We need to get the Chamber of Commerce onside. The word I heard is they do not support it. Well, let us go around and see the Chamber of Commerce and tell them of the benefits. It is about commerce. They should be supporting it; we are not trying to ruin industry, we are trying to encourage industry. So we need to be talking to those people: the local distributors, the Hotels Association, all those people. We need to be talking locally and convince them, not their big masters down south – we need to convince the local people that this will be beneficial for the Territory.
We also need to look at how it will operate on the ground. In our trip to South Australia, we saw things we would not want to copy. We have to remember the South Australian system has been operating for over 30 years and it has basically evolved, so it has some faults which make it, to some extent, inefficient. That is not saying it does not work, but it could work better if it did not have some of those things which, basically, have come along with time and, because the industry runs it, it is very hard to change. For instance, they have about six, what they call, super collectors, or material collectors. They are mainly owned by the industry, and there are complications with having several of these super collectors because they have their own arrangements with other collectors, and it gets all too complicated.
The Territory model - and I am not saying this will be the model in the end, I am putting forward my ideas - will have a single materials collector. It has to be a business. I mentioned it could be local government, I am not saying it will be; it could be simply a private business that will run it, and runs it as a business. The government may suggest certain things as to how that business should run. It may be, if there are any excess profits, you have to remember as it was told to me in South Australia, a lot of profits will have to go back into the system for sorting machines, collecting machines, trucks, baling machines, all those things will need to be maintained or replaced. Profits go back into that. Money will also be raised by the sales of the product. One person will be collecting a product and they will be able to look for the best markets for the plastic, glass, aluminium, and waxed paper. That is one thing we need to do differently to South Australia.
The other thing is the types of containers which the minister just spoke about. If it is possible, we should not go down the South Australian path. It is a bit hard to see a black and white photograph from where you are, but I can tell you this photograph is a series of containers. Every second one is nearly the same as the first one, but every second one does not have a 10 deposit on it. For instance, in South Australia, due to lobbying from the wine industry, a glass bottle of wine does not have a 10 deposit on it, but non-alcoholic wine has a 10 deposit on it. Bottles of fruit juice: a fruit juice drink can be in exactly the same container as fruit juice but the fruit juice drink gets a 10 deposit; the fruit juice is not regarded as a beverage, therefore, it does not have the 10 on it.
Water can come in a small container and have 10 on it but, if it comes in a larger litre container, it does not have 10 on it. One of the arguments is: a small bottle is a throwaway size. The big bottle is not; it is one you put in the fridge. The same with milk; the 600 ml iced coffee carton in South Australia gets you 10 but the one litre carton of the same thing does not have any deposit on it. We have to avoid that. How are you going to sort all that out? You can see from the poor people in South Australia they get bottles which look exactly the same and you have to know, one, whether there is a 10 refund to give someone, and two, they have to know whether they can separate them into the ones with a deposit so they can collect their money from the super collector. We need to avoid that. We have to convince the industry we are going to look at the containers generally used in the Northern Territory for drink purposes; whether it is a small container or large container. For instance, milk containers do not have 10 on them, but a 600 ml milk container of iced coffee has 10 deposit.
The plastic HDTE milk bottles do not have 10 deposit. The reason for that is a small lobby group said: ‘Milk is a basic food for our families; if you bump it up, our children will starve’, or something. We would like to know who funded this little group, but they were a big enough lobby group to convince the politicians not to put 10 on a milk carton even though they go back to the collectors and get all their money back. We have to learn from the inefficiencies of South Australia. We can make our system even better.
One of the interesting things about the system in South Australia is they combine the collectors - the people who come to you with bottles and cans - they combine that with recycling other materials. What happens is people get into the habit of coming to the recycler and they see bins there with copper, old electrical meters, all sorts of things; whatever you might have at the back of the house, you bring it along in a trailer and there is a bin for it and you put it in there. You get your money for your recycled goods, which are your containers, and at the same time you know you are going to the recycling depot and because it is all laid out neat and tidy, you just put it in. You do not get any money for it, but you have used the opportunity to recycle other materials which normally would not have a deposit on it. That is something we should be looking at.
We would not have local collectors just collecting bottles and cans; we could have, for instance, someone in Winnellie with a big yard to pick up all these other materials. We would need to change labels, and there should be discussion about how that would happen. There was discussion about having a map which shows South Australia and the Northern Territory as coming under this scheme so people immediately saw, if they were in these states, they can get their money back; or, whether we just add NT to the existing labels. That will require a bit of time because companies will say it will take them time to change their labels, but I believe we have to get around that by saying they have to have their labels changed by a certain time. And if they do not change them, we are still going to charge them for the bottles coming into the Territory, and we are going to start the scheme up regardless. The other thing is to try to get them to write the 5 and 10 bigger, because on some containers you can hardly see it.
The hard issue for the Territory is will we be the only ones having NT put on some of the containers, because South Australia does not have it on fruit juice containers, milk containers or on wine. So, we are going to have to introduce legislation which says if you want to sell a product in the Northern Territory you must have a label - and that is it. Of course, there will be some flack from the industry, but it is not that difficult to change the label. It will be of benefit to South Australia, as well, because South Australia has been trying to fix this anomaly for ages, and they have been caught up in the definition of what is a beverage. Well, we are not going to talk about beverages. We are talking about containers so if we ever wanted to include jam jars and liquid soap containers, we would be able to do that. They got stuck with this concept that it is about a beverage, and then argued till the lawyers go home what is a beverage. That is why they have this problem. So we need to avoid that, as well.
There are the start-up issues, and that is going to be a difficult one, there is no doubt about it. The minister spoke to the groups in South Australia about it. People are going to think they can hoard up all the cans and bottles and as soon as they are ready they will run them in. We will have to work out a scheme which says from a certain date only certain containers will be accepted, and it might be only the containers which have ‘10 South Australian deposit’ written on them; they are the only ones we will take, even though they might not be counted in our original stock. We may need to ask the government for some seeding money to cover that initial stage because there will be some problems we have to work through for the first couple of years.
It is not easy; we are the first territory to introduce this scheme from a blank sheet of paper. It evolved in South Australia, but we are now making a considered move to do it from scratch. We can learn from other models, like Hawaii, which introduced its scheme in 2006. There are a number of other places which have also introduced schemes recently - Estonia, Germany, Denmark and Israel, for instance, all introduced their new schemes this century. And there are many other countries, I mentioned the United States, and I believe most of Canada has a system as well. So we have to work through all that. I hope people will have patience. I know the Mayor of Alice Springs has said to hurry it along and I, for one, would love to hurry along, but the reality is you have to get it right. If you stuff up at the beginning, you will have a bad name for ever and a day, and that will be the end of it. We have to make sure it is right.
We also have to look at how we can deal with communities just outside the Territory. The Pitjantjatjara lands, for instance, south of the Northern Territory border; the people there generally buy all their goods from Alice Springs. At the moment they are not in the South Australia scheme for that reason, because they do not purchase their goods from South Australia. If we join, and I say ‘join’ in inverted commas, with South Australia, those people will be able to then get their money back because they have bought their cans from the Northern Territory - which is what the system is about, you get your deposit back in the state or territory you have bought the cans
The other areas would be Kununurra and Wyndham and how we could work with them. I believe we need to talk to the Western Australian government, which has certainly been looking at the container deposit system - with the change of government, I believe it has not been knocked on the head, but it has not gone ahead. We need to talk to them because if we get them onside the Kununurra/Wyndham issue would possibly go away. There is also Camooweal and Mt Isa, but that may not be a problem because they may get most of their materials from Brisbane, not from the Territory.
Another thing we can possibly learn from South Australia, and this is why I think it is good we went there, sometimes they receive their cans and bottles all mixed up together. What we could introduce, right at the beginning, is you will not get your money unless your cans, bottles, waxed paper or whatever, are separated. That could also include coloured glass and clear glass, which is always a problem with the industry. If someone comes with a box of things you would say: ‘You can take it home or you can sit out there and sort it’. Basically, we would ask people to do the sorting themselves. That reduces costs and makes the whole scheme more profitable. That is what we have to do; it is a very simple way of separating goods. They do not do that in South Australia because there is no legislation to require it. If you go to Cleanaway, you will see someone standing in front of a conveyor belt for hours on end, separating things. We could have the separation done simply by asking the consumer to separate items before bringing them to the collector. That is something we could add into the system.
We got some good ideas from South Australia. They said to make sure we look at our legislation to cover what is a new process. For instance, Coca-Cola might make all their cans in Sydney and distribute them to a large distributor for Woolworths in Victoria and, from there, Woolworths distribute them to Darwin. They will say: ‘We did not distribute to the Northern Territory; we distributed to Victoria, so we do not count’. We have to ensure we have legislation which covers that and says: ‘The coke you bring into the Territory, regardless of whether it went through a distributor or otherwise, is part of the system’. Again, legislation will have to be up-to-date to cover these new requirements. The good thing is that the industry in South Australia is willing to help.
We visited the EPA – they have a good Environmental Protection Authority in South Australia - Recyclers of SA. They met us at a collector’s site in Adelaide; and we also met with the board of one of the large material collectors, Statewide Recycling, as well. All of them - the government and industry - said they want to help us. If you have ever seen a lot of people with smiles on their faces, you saw it when the minister sat amongst these people and they asked why we were there. The minister said: ‘We are not here to learn about container deposit systems; we know this is what we want. We are going to bring a container deposit system into the Northern Territory, and we want your support’. There were some pretty big smiles on their faces because, for years, they have been pushing the system. They know the system is good and they will, I believe, be our greatest friends and helpers in bringing this into the Northern Territory so it starts off on the right foot, because they know the system inside out. They know how great it is for the environment, and they know how great it is for the state of South Australia.
We certainly will need these people to look at legislation and at the mechanics of how the system will work in the Northern Territory. With these good people behind us, we have a 100% chance of making sure this will be successful. I really appreciate the support those people gave us. We finished the day with them, and we were all - pardon me - stuffed. It was a solid day. They gave us so much information about their industry, how it worked and the inefficiencies in it, and we certainly learnt a lot. I hope they do come up here soon to give us a hand where possible.
Some of the changes in South Australia which have occurred: they have moved from 5 to 10 deposit for cans, and you will notice some of the companies have still not changed to 10, so it is not so easy to get industry to change. If you pick up some bottles and cans at the moment, you will notice the deposit varies. They have changed to collecting money on waxed paper carton products like iced coffee. However, as I said, how can you tell the difference between an iced coffee carton and a plain 600 ml milk carton? They are both waxed paper containers.
They also spoke about reverse vending machines. I do not know how they will go in the Northern Territory. Someone told me the other day - I think it was the member for Fannie Bay - that these are going to be compulsory in New York in some of the big shopping centres. Simply, it is a machine where you put your bottle or can or carton and it crushes it, and gives you get a voucher. I would imagine, if it is in a shopping centre, that you can use that voucher anywhere within the shopping centre. You do not get any money, but you get a voucher. They are not cheap machines - $40 000 - and you are looking at taking up space in the shopping centre. But for highly populated areas where it is not so simple to go to the local collector, or where there may be no room for a local collector, this is an option that the service industry, supermarkets and those types of places might be willing to look at. Do not forget, they get some money back too, because they own the bottles and cans, but they have to cover $40 000 plus the running costs, so they would have to get their sums right. This is another option they are trialling in South Australia. We have not seen it personally, but one company is talking about coming up here soon so, hopefully, that will be something we can avail ourselves of.
Overall, it was a great trip to South Australia. We have a long way to go, but I believe there is a bipartisan feel about this in the parliament. I will throw this in, and I do not mind if the minister does not agree with me, but I personally would be happy if the member for Brennan was part of our reference group. Having spoken to member for Brennan, I think he is a bloke who would benefit our reference group; he has a lot of common sense; he is a person who certainly has a lot of feeling for the environment. If you read what he said in the paper on the weekend, he is nearly as good as me – he is nearly independent. I digress, Madam Speaker. But I ask the government to consider the member for Brennan being part of our reference group, because I believe one way to fight the industry is to be united.
One way to convince the people in the Northern Territory that this is a good thing for the Territory is for all of us to get together. I suppose I am being a bit philosophical, but it would be nice if all the people in this parliament worked together towards a single goal. This is a good goal, and if we could bring one member from the opposition on, that would be good. This does not have to be political; this is something we can do to benefit the Territory.
We are starting some trials to show people how the system works, because it is a while since Coke had their bottling machine in Darwin; it is now in the middle of the harbour as a lovely fishing reef. There would be many young people today who would have no idea you can get money back for a drink container. When I was young it was how you got another drink, or you bought a pie on the way home from the football because of what you could find under the seats. Many people do not understand that. They have not been brought up with that system. They have lived in a throwaway society.
I believe there are opportunities coming up for us to show the public, especially younger people, how this system would work. The government is basically offering some money, well, asking the Howard Springs Scout Group to be provided with a small grant which they can use at the Freds Pass Show, probably on the Saturday. Basically, anyone who brings them a bottle or can will get 10 for it. They will register that, and thanks to Col Hardy from CMA Recycling, he has offered to donate some bins for this purpose. In fact, he is a man we should be talking to – he is very much into recycling in the whole of northern Australia. He was telling me he has been part of a scheme in Port Hedland where Rio Tinto and BHP have actually put in a deposit scheme for containers in that town; so he has a lot of knowledge about these things, especially in relation to northern Australia. We are hoping to teach people if they bring their bottles and cans back, they will get some money for them; it is not rubbish. The next day, Sunday - hopefully we will not have any money left, because once the money runs out, that is it - we will see how many come back when there is no deposit, and compare the two. If you look at the return rates for all the products in South Australia, they leave the rest for dead.
They also have kerbside recycling, which the Australian Food and Grocery Council will probably tell you this scheme ruins. Adelaide has kerbside recycling; Adelaide has a deposit scheme, and Adelaide has the highest return rates for just about every recyclable product in relation to containers. So, we know it works. We have to make sure we learn by the inefficiencies of the South Australian model. If it can have the highest return rate with all those inefficiencies, imagine if we get rid of all those inefficiencies, we will also have a very high rate.
There is much more work to be done. I thank the minister for allowing me to be on this reference group, and I thank the member for Fannie Bay. I sincerely would like to put it to government, again, to consider the member for Brennan; he is a genuine bloke and, as I said, he is nearly an Independent. He is not an Independent politically, but I know he is independent in his thinking and he would be a great asset.
I support the minister’s statement. I will say again, I am excited, but we have a tough row to hoe before we get this into the Northern Territory, and we must bring the people of the Northern Territory along with us.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Country Liberals commend the minister for moving forward with the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation. We trust a model will be both financially sound and considers the Territory’s unique position for being remote and with a low population base. The Country Liberals’ own policy supports CDL; the policy is to reduce the amount of landfill and encourage active recycling of glass, plastic and aluminium beverage containers by providing a financial incentive offset by increased price. This could be a source of fundraising for clubs, schools and charities, independent of government grants, to be run in conjunction with existing kerbside recycling collection in areas which have such collection services.
With that point in mind, we support moving forward with Container Deposit Legislation. In doing so, it must be said there are many concerns to be addressed, many hurdles to cross and much to learn and evaluate before a successful model can be introduced; none more so than this government’s propensity to run the gauntlet with its headline-grabbing policy well before any real work, or even proof of delivery, has been demonstrated.
As I said, this side of the House very much supports CDL, but I cannot help being cynical because I recall seeing glossy brochures time and time again, even before the last election, bragging about delivering a pool in the rural area. I suggest the government should look at the word ‘delivery’ in the dictionary, as I am positive in most people’s mind to have something delivered, is to have it in one’s hand. Just like the postman – he actually delivers mail; he does not announce he intends to deliver the mail tomorrow or the next day, or perhaps the day after. He actually delivers. With that in mind, I trust the postie more that I trust this government. Even though he brings me far too many bills this postie, many of course from the government - that is something they can deliver.
Do not get me started on glossy brochures. The government is quite prepared to promote themselves as great leaders delivering for Territorians; promoting how good government housing is; how well they have managed law and order issues; brag about how much money they have spent; and brag about how full the prisons are, like it is a badge of honour. Let me tell, you a full prison is not a badge of honour; it is a cruel example of years of failed social policy. A real badge of honour for a government would be empty gaols because the policies have led to a positive change in community attitudes, respect and decency.
I cannot help to be sceptical, as are many Territorians, or have become over time, particularly over the last eight years, with hundreds of grandiose announcements leading to zero outcomes. Even with CDL, we have had an on-again, off-again approach by this government due to a number of reasons including the financial viability of any program.
Let us look at a press release by the then minister, Dr Burns. In 2003, he suggested the government had rejected introducing Container Deposit Legislation because of predictions it would result in an increase in the cost of living for many Territory families:
The Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr Chris Burns said the model would have led to price rises and an increase in the weekly family shopping bill. There were also serious issues over taxation and operational concerns associated with the model proposed. Some estimates even pointed to the model resulting in a $3 to $5 increase in the cost of a carton of beer.
I am not sure if there is a good time to increase the cost.
However, in March 2006, the member for Nelson put out a media release suggesting the government believed in CDL, but could not bring itself to apply the scheme to the whole of the Territory. The member for Nelson called the government’s contract to investigate the logistics of CDL in remote communities a ‘back door approach’ and if the government was serious about recycling - this is from the media release - reducing greenhouse gases and reducing landfill, then it should introduce CDL. It works in South Australia; it could work in the Northern Territory.’
Then in April 2008, the then minister for Environment put out a press release which said:
That is three or four things we have had now and the question is: are we there yet? I believe we should introduce a MRDL which is a Media Release Deposit Legislation scheme. I appreciate government being frustrated by the time it has taken to introduce a national scheme, and I am sure we all agree a national approach would be a very good and simpler approach. However, for a government to criticise the Alice Springs Town Council for wanting to go alone is perhaps a little hypocritical because, I would assume, the Alice Springs Town Council is also frustrated and is moving down the road of a local model for the very same reasons this government states: it is frustrated with the time the federal government is taking on a national program.
Another risk which should be highlighted is the real risk of introducing a scheme at great cost only to come up with the real potential of a national program being introduced in a few years. And, if the Territory’s model sits outside the national model, the cost involved in modifying our local model could be substantial. The truth is, if a national model is introduced, you could not expect the national beverage industry to wear the costs of an individual program in different states and territories around Australia. A national model would be just that: a national model.
A bit of background: an independent review conducted by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney was commissioned by the New South Wales Environment minister to examine the economic, environmental and social impacts of introducing Container Deposit Legislation. The review reported a deposit and refund system on drink containers could provide benefits to the community worth $100m annually - and this is just in New South Wales, so it is a very viable option, you would think.
In New South Wales, there are approximately 1.7 billion beverage containers which do not get collected for recycling and are disposed of into landfill. According to the head of the research team, Dr Stuart White, the environmental cost is around 8 to 9 per container that is lost to landfill. The report also estimated that a container deposit system would create up to 1500 permanent full-time jobs and create an income stream for clubs, schools, charities and the disadvantaged, and ease recycling costs for council. Data collected from the 19th Clean Up Australia Day reported that beverage containers comprised one third, over 2400 tonnes, of all rubbish collected during the 2008 campaign. Mr Kiernan from Clean Up Australia stated:
The real cost associated with any recycling program in a remote location – and I include Darwin in that grouping because, by definition, we are very remote from the recycle markets in the southern states – is the cost of freight and the resale value of any recycled product. For instance, there is no financial viability in returning a compacted block of paper and cardboard to, say, the Australian Paper Mill in Melbourne if the cost of getting the recycling material to Melbourne is more than the value of that material.
To explore that a little more, it is very unfortunate the situation here in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Darwin/Palmerston area, with as much as 70% of recycled material delegated to landfill because of a number of factors including contaminated waste and the market, in regard to any given material. Again, it comes down to the cost of recovery is more than the market value of the waste. This, of course, is not true with all materials. Aluminium is just one product where it can be demonstrated there is a 20-fold cost saving in recycling versus the cost of producing more material.
If your sole purpose for introducing CDL was to improve our environment by removing the high levels of waste we have across the Territory, it can be done at a minimum cost, as long as you are prepared to dig a hole for most of the waste and only continue the recycle process with high-value material such as aluminium. However, this would not be seen as acceptable by most people if they realised just how much of our recycled material today ends up in our landfills. They would be truly surprised, perhaps horrified, that the reason is cost.
I recall as a child, particularly around Christmas time, together with my cousins, we would load up the wheelbarrow at Nanna’s place with all the empty soft drink bottles consumed over Christmas, and off we would trot to the local milk bar to return all the bottles and spend the spoils on lollies and milkshakes - not those plastic, pretend milkshakes you get in most outlets today, real milkshakes – at Turnley’s Milk Bar in Moulamein southern New South Wales - real milkshakes. They were served in tin containers, not those plastic and cardboard things you get today. Does anyone remember those?
Members: Yes, absolutely.
Mr CHANDLER: Digging a little deeper, and recognising the climate at the time regarding recycling, the difference was: first, the milkshake container I was drinking out of was washed and used again. The bottles we were returning went back to the soft drink factory. They were cleaned, disinfected and filled again. I still remember seeing bottles so scratched you could not help think about how many times it had been through that process. I also recall most of the small towns having a depot absolutely full of crates of deep brown empty bottles; I was not sure what they were at the time, but all returned because of the deposit return on each bottle at the time.
The difference then compared to now was the fact that the cost to produce a bottle was more than the 20 refund at the time. Today, unfortunately, for recycling purposes, it would appear far more expensive for the beverage industry to use a similar system. In fact, today it is my understanding many bottles can be produced for 20 or less, making it more economical to use new bottles, whether they be glass or plastic, each time they are filled. That is disappointing, but a fact.
One of the problems I have with recent and the latest media release is government still has an out. This media release starts off with saying: ‘The Chief Minister Paul Henderson today announced’ - another announcement - it says:
In principle:
The words ‘financially viable’ are just one such out. While this side of the House certainly agrees with this principle, having worked with this government for a while I have learned, unfortunately, not to trust its capacity to actually deliver.
Let us move on to the minister’s statement today. I note three questions the minister asked of herself, and they were good questions. The first question: does CDL do a good job cleaning up litter from bottles and cans? Well, the answer is certainly yes. The second question is: can it be successfully implemented? To say yes to that draws a very long bow at this early stage, particularly given the previous advice from investigation after investigation. I say this because I trust, had the numbers stacked up before, this legislation, based on common sense, would have been introduced years ago …
Mr Wood: .There was no common sense then.
Mr CHANDLER: That is the difference.
Mr Wood: There is now, we are in a new age.
Mr CHANDLER: There is also one word within that question which, perhaps, should be scrutinised further, and that word is ‘successfully’. Many things today can be achieved at a cost. What will this cost Territorians? While I should remind the House the Country Liberals support CDL, we do not support a model that unfairly impacts on the mums and dads, the elderly and the young
The third question is: can it co-exist with the beverage industry? We all know it currently exists within the beverage industry in Australia, given that South Australia has had CDL for decades but, given the beverage industry is a national industry, the question could be, how flexible will they be if we have a roll-out of local models around the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker, one point I would like to make in regard to storing materials particularly in a tropical environment, given most CDL models promote home style storage of material to be transported to larger depots when your storage area is full, storing material that has the capacity to attract ants and other vermin can lead to disease and general filth. While washing out material prevents this to some degree, the added waste with our valuable water resource questions the balance we have here, particularly when we are supposed to be protecting the environment. I propose some level of education may be required to support home storage.
Government proposes to introduce CDL that is legally and financially sound, and capable of being implemented in rural, remote and urban parts of the Northern Territory. While all of this is possible at cost, I suggest many of the past recommendations from research undertaken suggests it cannot be done without considerable cost and is perhaps the sole reason why CDL has not been successfully implemented in the past.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the question should be: given this research and its recommendations, what has changed in recent times that provide this government with the idea that it can be done now, and can be achieved now without significant cost? Perhaps this will be this government’s way out again. I sincerely hope it is not, as we can all agree, CDL is a good concept.
I note in the statement a reference to a reverse vending machine. I may have to take some counsel on that term, but if it does refer to a vending machine that takes your money without delivering a product - we already have those in the Territory. I kid with you. I have also heard that reverse vending machines, or that term is used for poker machines, or even a Labor government.
The fact is, the member for Nelson was able to provide a brief description of a reverse vending machine, and I thank him for that. I do understand these machines could be placed at shops and bus depots, providing a quick and easy deposit return on containers. I wonder if they work on weight however, because I wonder how long it will take for a kid to put a little sand in each can, just to up the return slightly.
I, too, look forward to the days where young children, community groups and perhaps even schools, can all get involved in recycling through Container Deposit Legislation, where young children can either use the money towards saving, or perhaps spending a little and enjoying the spoils of their efforts. Whatever model is used, I urge the government not to make it too difficult for people, because if make it too hard, you may take the opportunity away for young children to enjoy what I once did by loading up the wheelbarrow and heading off to the local shop to get my refund.
The minister said the NT scheme would be modelled on the South Australian Container Deposit Legislation where cans, bottles and cartons attract a 10 refund. The member for Nelson has been promoting this idea for many years and one can only commend him on his efforts for trying so hard for so long.
If, as it says in the last media release, ‘it gets litter of the streets and money into the pockets of people who do the right thing,’ it gives kids and community groups a chance to raise funds and we can show a clean, green image to visitors who come to share our unique environment and lifestyle. That is certainly legislation and a model we should aspire to and, hopefully, it works and does exactly what it sets out to do. I thank the minister for bringing this forward.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and, like the member for Nelson, I am excited. It is a great initiative we are undertaking here and the minister made an excellent contribution, as did the member for Nelson.
It is a bit hard to remain excited after the member for Brennan’s dirge. I thought it a bit disappointing, member for Brennan, in your contribution that you do not support the Cash for Containers Scheme with the committee. But there are many challenges out there we need to take on board, and it is best if we do it in a positive frame of mind. I want to work with the member for Nelson and the minister to tackle those. That is how we are going to get a great outcome here, and it would be really good if the opposition and the member for Brennan came on board but, obviously they are not there at this stage. Maybe after these statements are finished they might come across or might come across eventually, but at the moment they do not support it, and that is disappointing.
Container Deposit Legislation Cash for Containers or the Bottle Bill as it is known in the United States - I note that New York now has a bigger, better Bottle Bill - but the idea of getting money for recycling, for picking up someone else’s rubbish, is a simple idea that works well, not just in South Australia, but many places around the world. Litter is a big issue in the Territory. There are spots in my electorate that suffer from litter and my electorate is not alone in having this problem. While litter is an issue in the Territory, so is landfill, as it is everywhere, and we still do not have a great recycling culture. These are all issues which can be addressed through a Cash for Containers Scheme. It is not the silver bullet, but it does go along way to tackling all these issues. As I have already mentioned, with the minister and the member, I am on the reference group and we headed down to South Australia recently to check out their collection depots and their super collectors and talked with some of their experts down there, the EPA, which the member for Nelson and the minister mentioned, as well as the people at the pointy end who are collecting the cans.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I notice that we have come to 9 pm. I urge that the arrangements described by the Speaker earlier on today be exercised in favour of the member for Fannie Bay.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr GUNNER: Everywhere we went we had to convince people we were serious about doing Cash for Containers in the Territory. In South Australia they are used to a lot of people coming through who are thinking about it, and doing another study. Despite being told in advance that we had already jumped that hurdle, and had decided that we are doing it, the question now is how. They still needed to be convinced in person and, when they were, as the member for Nelson mentioned, there was a queue of volunteers lining up to come here and help us implement it because they are passionate about it. They are passionate about it because in South Australia it works.
Cash for Containers helps reduce litter in South Australia. It reduces the amount of material which goes into landfill and creates a better culture of recycling all types of things, not just cans and bottles. I have a few statistics here from the South Australian EPA Zero Waste website. South Australia recovers at least one-third more aluminium cans than other states where collection is influenced by the market value of the metal. South Australia recovers 85% of non-refillable, glass, soft drink bottles compared to 36% nationally. South Australia recovers 84% of cans marketed in the state, compared with 63% nationally. The return rate for plastic soft drink containers, PDT, is 74%, while the national return rate is 36%. Liquid paper …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, I take it you are going to 9.10 pm, which you are absolutely entitled to do?
Mr GUNNER: I can continue my remarks at a later date.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely up to you.
Mr Elferink: I was urging that you be given the 10 minutes …
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to …
Madam Deputy SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, if you take the 10 minutes then that will be all the time you can have. You cannot ...
Mr GUNNER: I am not entirely convinced I will only go for 10 minutes, so I would prefer …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely your call.
Mr Elferink: Oh I see. Well, back to you, mate.
Mr GUNNER: I appreciate what you are doing but I will end now, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being past 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the item of business before the Chair is adjourned. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about the Ministerial Statement on Container Deposit Legislation as part of my adjournment debate. It was a very good statement. It is probably one of the better statements I have heard. The minister is a no-nonsense, action minister who talks about the way things really are. Like the member for Brennan, I hope this is not just a media release where the government says we are trying to shore up Green preferences without actually doing anything. I am a person who thinks CDL will go along way to making some positive changes in the Territory, especially in terms of litter. I hope the member for Brennan is included on the committee to try to bring forward CDL at a more expedient date.
There has been a lot of negativity in Alice Springs with the Alice Springs Town Council introducing its liquor litter levy which will tax Alice Springs residents a substantial amount of money to fund a temporary scheme to attempt to fund pick up of alcohol cans, such as VB cans. Whilst council should be commended for doing something in light of the Territory government’s failures, the approach is uneconomical and it attacks businesses, landlords and all Alice Springs residents because rates will go up as a result of it. The people who pay rates are not necessarily those who litter, so it is negative.
I urge the Northern Territory government to bring on the CDL as fast as possible, recognising that there are impediments and I encourage the Environment minister to work as quickly as possible to get CDL to the Territory. If the Northern Territory government was fair dinkum about daily control of litter in the Northern Territory, they would fund the municipal councils, particularly Alice Springs and Katherine, so they can run their own Cash for Container schemes until CDL is rolled-out across the Northern Territory.
In 2006, the Northern Territory government gave Alice Springs Council $10 000 to run their trial Cash for Containers program. It was a huge success with hundreds of thousands of cans and bottles collected during the life of the trial, which was about three months, until the money ran out. It is a no-brainer that if this was delivered on a much larger scale, say to the tune of $200 000, it would have an immediate impact on container litter in Alice Springs. The infrastructure is already in place to remove the containers.
Alice Springs already has some companies which could easily be contracted to take the containers down south. The only new infrastructure required would be a collection point, a depot, somewhere in town. $200 000 would be a minimum; council has suggested it would need approximately $350 000. Either amount would make a significant impact on container rubbish in Alice Springs. The proposal could well be self-financed in the long run.
If Alice Springs Town Council was given $200 000 to run the program, that will be a $200 000 saving on current litter control measures. In turn, that $200 000 saving could be put directly back into the community and, in turn, that would be less money the council would require from the Northern Territory government in local government grants for things such as litter collection. The scheme would also create a quasi-labour force and would most definitely see an immediate impact on container litter in Alice Springs. As for the council’s plans, I have again publicly criticised it on air, and in the paper, as recently as today. I have defended businesses and I have defended Alice Springs residents who will get another tax hit as a result of the failure by this Northern Territory government.
In no uncertain terms the council’s plan is flawed. It is not outlets which are dumping the litter on our streets and parks. It is those who are too lazy and selfish to walk 10 m to put their rubbish in the bin. The council is effectively saying the 12 outlets are responsible for the litter in Alice Springs. That is 12 local businesses where the money stays in town. Meanwhile, the multinationals like KFC and Subway get off scot-free. In a nutshell, while the council’s planning is harebrained, the Northern Territory government must act now and fund the council with an annual grant so they can roll-out CDL across the Territory.
I congratulate the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and the council for trying to do something in light of the failures of this Northern Territory government to bring in CDL to help clean up our town, improve recycling, and have a greener approach to the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk briefly during my five minutes in regard to the proposed CDL. Like many people in this Chamber I, too, grew up in Darwin and had great delight in collecting Coke bottles and soft drink bottles, particularly at the football matches. So much so, that we became like vultures in our youth and used to hover around the adults whilst they drank their soft drinks, waiting for them to give us the bottles.
There are a couple of key points I would like to make. One, in the course of moving towards developing legislation, I see reference in the minister’s statement to setting up a reference committee. I have no issue with that in regard to my colleagues in the Chamber being involved, but I would like to see people other than parliamentarians involved in a reference committee. Specifically, I am talking stakeholders such as industry - retailers, manufacturers and wholesalers of soft drinks and beverages and alcoholic drinks - to ensure they are included in any decisions with regard to a move towards legislation. I believe it is excellent legislation. I believe it will work and will be a major contributor to our litter prevention programs which will then lead to hygienic programs, particularly in remote communities.
I notice in the statement the minister thanked people who have been advocates and campaigners for Container Deposit Legislation, in particular the Keep Australia Beautiful Council and the previous Executive Officer, Lorna Woods, who was a staunch advocate for CDL, both with this government and the previous Country Liberal government. I know at times she felt very frustrated that many promises were undertaken by all sides of politics, but nothing much yielded. It probably brings her, as a person and an advocate of this kind of legislation, a great deal of pride because, finally, we are moving towards getting CDL.
One other point I would like to make in regard to CDL and litter and keeping our roads clean is that, in any deliberations this government has on this legislation, I sincerely hope they include our Defence personnel at the Robertson Army Barracks area. The litter on Tulagi and Thorngate Roads from the Stuart Highway through to the Robertson Army Barracks area is an ongoing problem. Family members of mine have had issues with Defence stating quite publicly there is a litter problem there. Defence, I believe, has reacted badly in this regard and tries to abdicate responsibility for this rubbish and litter coming from Defence personnel.
Mr Wood: It is not all Defence.
Ms PURICK: It is fairly indicative it has come from Defence personnel. I, with other members of my family and members of the community, did embark on cleaning up this road on Clean Up Australia Day. When you pick up Red Bull cans, beer bottles, iced coffee containers, condom packets, cigarette boxes, Red Rooster and Kentucky Fried boxes and so forth, it is fairly obvious where this material has come from ...
Mr Wood: Lots of people use that road.
Ms PURICK: It has been put to me that it is probably all those naughty people from the northern suburbs using the back road going to a particular drinking establishment in the Palmerston area, but I do not believe that. I urge the minister and the government to involve Defence personnel at all levels to ensure they are part of the development of this legislation to the benefit of all the community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to share a wonderful part of my work as the Barkly MLA. In the course of my duties, I have had the privilege and honour of meeting and getting to know Mrs Ruby Reed of Tennant Creek. In one of our recent meetings, Ruby showed me a tattered paper copy of an oral history transcript recorded on 3 March 1990 in Tennant Creek by Francis Good. Ruby offered me the transcript to read and commented that her late husband, Mr Robert Reed, was also interviewed. However, the family had lost the transcript and, unfortunately, she could not supply me with another example of a family’s fascinating history as true Territory pioneers on the goldfields of Tennant Creek.
With Ruby’s permission and blessing, I conducted my own research into NT Archives to procure hard copies of both prized transcripts to present to Ruby and her family. I sincerely thank the staff of the Parliamentary Library Service, Northern Territory Library and the Northern Territory Archive Service for their support and professional work in locating and publishing copies of both transcripts for Ruby and Robert Reed, which I was proudly able to deliver last week. Respect your elders is an age-old standard, and one I value for many reasons and must echo the core values of our post modern communities. In terms of elders, Mrs Ruby Reed reflects not only a beautiful senior Territorian of Tennant Creek, but also a true pioneer and woman of the Barkly, who both inspires and mentors others through her wonderful life.
Ruby Reed was born in Jundah, Queensland on 28 November 1923, growing up on a remote cattle station before marrying in 1943, and moving to Tennant Creek in 1947. Ruby and her beloved husband, Robert Reed, became part of a pioneering spirit in what could be called Australia’s last gold rush, immersing them in what Ruby describes in her transcript as ‘a man’s town, a very rough town with more men than women’. In Tennant Creek, Ruby set up house in a black iron hut with a dirt floor. Hessian was used to divide the rooms and hessian water bags were hung to cool water.
Ruby embraced that pioneering spirit in Tennant Creek and the Territory, raising her five children in a frontier environment while maintaining an extensive program of community involvement in the Brownies, baseball, speedway, Country Women’s Association and the Senior Citizens over many years. Ruby is now one of our celebrated senior citizens, with the wisdom and knowledge that complements her kindness and compassion as one of the Territory’s best.
Good health and happiness, Ruby, and thank you for the opportunity of learning from your life and times in the outback. I look forward to the next exciting stage in your inspirational example as a celebrated Australian.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I call upon the Treasurer and the minister for Planning to fulfil a promise she has so far neglected to fulfil. That was a promise made to the small group of concerned residents at a meeting called by the minister, if memory serves me, on the site of the old Darwin Hospital about November last year.
The minister was asked a question during the course of that meeting, and the substance of that question was: ‘will you make the Mickey Dewar report available?’ The minister gave a cast iron guarantee that she would make the Mickey Dewar report available. For those members who are unaware of who Mickey Dewar is, she was the consultant engaged by government to do a review of the site, particularly from a historical perspective. I know that review was completed in a punctual fashion and, as I understand it, was submitted to the government on 18 December 2008. It is now time for the minister to make good on the promise she made to that meeting and make that report public in its entirety.
This minister promised an open approach on this issue to that meeting but, so far, since the report has been received, she has remained, as far as I am aware, utterly silent on the report and the information in it. It is high time the Treasurer of the Northern Territory and the minister for Planning stopped treating the people who live in Port Darwin as some sort of dogs who need to be kept in a box and denied access to information, particularly as she made a commitment to those people in a public forum that she would make the report available.
I have yet to see that report, and I am deeply concerned that the absence of that report bodes an ill wind for the old hospital site.
Whilst I have said publicly that I was not unattracted to the partial development of the site to pay for a park in the area, I am less than overwhelmed by the proposed design. My major criticism has been that the development is at the wrong end of the block. I am also aware submissions were made which suggested something else entirely – and I have already spoken publicly about that - an iconic building for largely Indigenous art purposes. I am very attracted to that.
The silence from this minister in relation to this matter has been deafening. So far we have seen nothing from the minister which gives me comfort that the so-called consultation process this minister promised to engage in with the people of Port Darwin, and Darwin as a whole, has any chance of happening. If this is an example of the consultative process - yes, I will have a public meeting, yes, I will promise to make the material available - but then say nothing at all, then the consultative process is flawed in a profound way.
If the government intends to develop the block in spite of what people are telling them, then do not bother with consultants and be honest about it. Just develop the block and cop the political pain, but do not trot out to public meetings, make promises to the people, raise expectations and then dash those expectations with thunderous silence which is now coming up to five months in length - probably close to six months.
I call upon the minister to make available the Mickey Dewar report unedited, in its complete state in accordance with the promise she made to the people of Port Darwin and the people of Darwin generally.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to say thank you to very special and beautiful people. On my three day tour through Nitmiluk Park and Katherine, Gregory National Park and Keep River I have met the most beautiful people - our Park Rangers. I thank these very special people for their hospitality, all the scones and cups of tea they made and thank our rangers from Katherine for taking me and my Chief of Staff, Mathew Fagan, on a beautiful ride from Katherine to Gregory National Park and Keep River. I will just name a few of those people: Chief District Ranger, Kristin Appel; Rangers, Rhys Arnott, Joey Buckerfield and Lisa Mumbin.
I also met with Lisa in Katherine and had dinner with Brian Hill from NT Bushfires Council, who is a wonderful person. These people commit so much of their lives to saving people and looking after our environment. On Nitmiluk Tours and Cruise I need to express gratitude to Norm Greenfield, Andrew McPhee, Phil Runyu and Diane Bowman.
I thank all those people at the Katherine Museum; they also gave us scones and cups of tea so were sconed out and cup of tea’d out for the whole journey through Katherine and Gregory National Park. It was beautiful meeting all these people, and I thank also John McNamara; and Eddie Webber, who took us out on that journey to Keep River, an absolutely wonderful person and committed to parks. I said my life after politics might be as a ranger sitting in one of these beautiful places like Keep River. Simon Hartley, Liana Brown and Cate Schmidt from Timber Creek, from Bullita, Richard Tunnicliffe, his wife, Jenni and children, Casey, who is a boy, Jessica and Shanelle. Jenni also gave us plenty of scones and cups of tea. And last, but not least Cameron Sharpe and his wife, Mel, and children, Oliver, Rubin and Isabella. We had a beautiful breakfast and lunch together at Keep River in front of the billabong, and thought how lucky Cameron is to be on Keep River in this beautiful country and sit in front of the billabong every morning and evening. I thank them all again.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I wish to update people on some matters of importance. Unfortunately, for my friends and me, tomorrow afternoon at 4 pm on Amy Johnson Drive is the funeral for our friend, Don Friend. It will be a very emotional time for me and all my friends, but the benefit of having such good friends is you can look after each other; I know that is what will happen.
This morning before parliament, I found myself cooking bchamel sauce, trying to help Sue, his wife, so she did not have quite so much to do - we managed to get there, and it tasted pretty good. These are the things you try to do for friends. Trying to cook white sauce in a suit is not bad.
This Saturday will be a much more enjoyable day. I will heading to Katherine, dropping into a few places on the way, which I have started to become quite accustomed to. We have the Katherine Country Music Muster there, which has built up a good reputation as an event to get to. If anyone is considering getting out of town for the weekend, you could do no better than head to the Country Music Muster in Katherine and have a great time. The music we now hear in our country stream is so diverse compared with what we traditionally heard back in the days of Slim Dusty, and because of that, so many more people can relate to the type of music we hear. They will be putting on a fantastic show. I am very much looking forward to it, and I know my colleague, the member for Katherine, is looking forward to it as well. We are going to have a great time there.
We will also see some polocrosse. I have not played polocrosse, but if they want me to have a go, I will have a go. I might come back with my arm in a sling. There are many sports and different activities in our regional areas that people need to be more aware of and take the time and say: ‘Let us have a look at that. Let us take the time to take our family down and see what else we can do to make our lives full of joy’. These types of events really do that. We are going to have a great time there this weekend, and be back for parliament next week.
I pick up on what was said before by the Arts minister about the Katherine Museum. I am very glad that she has been there, because it is a really lovely museum; it is a beautiful place run by some absolutely lovely people. I had the pleasure many months ago meeting them all and I cannot wait to go back as the day we were there we were very rushed and had many things to do. It is truly a lovely museum run predominantly by volunteers. There are many treasures hidden in the remote parts of our communities. Do take the time to have a look around and consider what is available when you are planning your weekend. Get out there with your families, and that includes the people from Drysdale; take a bit of a trip, Katherine is not far away. Have a look around at the different activities you can do with your family and enjoy some of the great Territory sights. The Territory is truly full of fantastic things to do and you can have an absolute ball with your kids. Or, with your lovely partner, get away from the kids and have a good time.
I am looking forward to it. I am looking forward to meeting people we have met in Katherine many times, and I am looking forward to having a great time with my colleague and some of his friends who, with his lovely wife, will be putting me up for the night. I look forward to it and I will be back here next week looking forward to a great time in parliament.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak some very kind words for a lovely ‘young’ couple in Katherine who today, 30 April 2009, are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. As we all know, it is a heck of a milestone to be able to reach 60 years of wedded bliss. In this day and age it is becoming more and more difficult to achieve those goals. Congratulations to Flip and Ingrid Phillips who have lived in Katherine for a very long time. Flip’s real name is actually Lindsay, but I do not think anyone has called Flip by his correct name for many years, perhaps not since he was a child.
Flip Phillips and his wife, Ingrid, are what can be termed as living pioneers. They moved to Katherine around the 1960s. They were heavily involved in agriculture in the region, and produced crops; they worked on new crops and, in fact, there is a crop of maize which was developed by Flip that he named after his wife. The name of that particular variety of maize is Ingrid.
Flip was also instrumental in the beginnings of the Katherine Show. It was he who encouraged a friend of his, Bert Nixon, to show his purebred Poll short-horned cattle. That is one of the rarer breeds nowadays because so many of the purebred cattle have disappeared and are now replaced by many crossbreeds. Flip owned a number of properties in Katherine, with his wife, and some of those places where he lived and worked are still there. For example, the Scout Hall in Katherine, as it was then, was owned by Flip. He and Ingrid are very fondly remembered in Katherine.
I acknowledge the Katherine Times for an article they did on Flip and Ingrid very recently. Ingrid said, and I quote from the newspaper: ‘Flip was the only man her mother would let her go out with’. Flip said: ‘She was a young girl who used to answer her dad back’. These are the lovely, innocent words of people of that era who spoke of each other very caringly. Flip said he was clean living compared to some of the other men around, and he gradually got used to her. You can imagine the constrained and very nice way in which people referred to each other in those days. The words we use these days really would not have fitted into the repertoire of those days.
It is true testament to the dedication and devotion of such a strong love and marriage that Flip and Ingrid have been able to make it to 60 years of marriage. I congratulate them wholeheartedly; it is one heck of a milestone to reach. They are both very highly regarded people in around the town of Katherine. In fact, I saw Flip recently; he was in the Anzac Day march perched in pride of place on top of one of our local vintage cars parading up the main street. Again, congratulations to them both. They are a testament to the type of people who go to the heart of the Katherine community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about the Anzac Day cricket match. This is courtesy of Lieutenant William Heck, who wrote this article for the Army newsletter. He headed it: ‘Where’s Dennis?’
I would also like to read this letter that I saw in the Centralian Advocate since we are talking about chooks, and this is headed ‘Even Chooks Aren’t Safe’:
And with that, I will say goodnight.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 7
Message No 7
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from his Honour the Administrator Message No 7, recommending the Financial Management Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 37) to the Legislative Assembly.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry - Status of Review
Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry - Status of Review
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House the current status of the review into the Commercial Passenger Vehicle (CPV) industry in the Northern Territory.
The Henderson government has committed to protecting Territory jobs, and building and growing the Territory. It is a role of government to provide policy direction in important public matters and transport policy is one of the most significant areas of community interest.
In late 2007, due to a number of emerging local transport issues, this government decided to undertake a holistic review of the CPV industry. The scope of this review led to Fivenines Consulting being appointed in April 2008 to undertake the review. A fundamental objective of the review and the policy that develops from it will be a reviewed CPV sector which is designed to serve the community and benefit the industry.
There are currently nine different licence classes in the Territory for CPVs, and we are aware that this can create some confusion for the consumer trying to access CPV services, and the operators with respect to which part of the market they are legally allowed to operate in. We are also aware that this can create some tension between competing licence holders. We know there is a need for a clearly articulated government policy and strategy for the CPV industry which can protect the travelling public and at the same time provide a viable and growing CPV supply sector.
Through the development of such a policy we acknowledge that the CPV sector needs to know what are the plans for the provision and supervision of transport in the Territory in future years; what role transport is to play in the broader government agenda; and how issues such as transport integration will be managed. Equally, we understand it is the role of the industry to develop and provide services that meet passenger demand within the policy framework.
Most of us will be aware of the queues at the airport and in the city, meaning long delays for passengers; even in quiet times passengers sometimes have to wait. Disabled and disadvantaged passenger advocates have been vocal in their criticism of the lack of accessibility to public transport. Excessive wait times and missed pick-ups by far constitute the greatest number of complaints to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Over the last six months, expensive consultations were undertaken across all sectors of the CPV industry and across all areas where CPV services are offered. These areas included Darwin, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. All the issues raised during this process were then aggregated and core issues were identified; it was evident that the majority of these core issues were of concern to all stakeholders.
I am pleased to report that Mr Robert Eames from Fivenines Consulting has now completed his review, based on consultations with the CPV industry across the Territory. I am in the process of considering the detail of the review ahead of further consultation with the broader sectors of the industry such as disability advocates and tourism representatives.
A comprehensive summary of the recommendations from the review has now been released to assist the industry in the further consultation process. The next round of consultation will begin next month. I urge all members of the transport industry and relevant community sectors to take this opportunity to have their say on a blueprint to shape the direction of the future of the industry. I also encourage all members, indeed, all Territorians, to engage in this process. I look forward to results which will benefit both consumer and industry operators alike.
Madam Speaker, I table the synopsis for the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for tabling the synopsis of the review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. The minister gave a good explanation about having nine different categories of licences under the commercial passenger vehicle legislation, and the review will provide some certainty to the industry. I am aware that the industry is looking for direction about how it proceeds.
I am also aware that the review which was announced in 2007 has taken some time to get to the position it is now. We have been waiting 18 months for a review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. We all know how hard it is to get a taxi late at night. We know the violence that happens on Mitchell Street, as an example. We know how hard it is to get a cab at all hours of the night. We know that cab drivers are concerned about their safety. Recently - I think it was last weekend - we heard about passengers in a minibus who were attacked. The core of this review should look at how to improve passenger and driver safety.
What is required is certainty for the industry, to ensure the taxi industry is a viable industry and that our taxis and minibuses are on the road, and the hire cars, limousines and buses are fully servicing Territorians’ needs. At the moment, they are not.
It is important is to recognise that after 18 long months of extensive consultations, as the minister put it, we now have a synopsis to consult on. I would have thought we would be in a position to make a decision, but this government is in analysis paralysis where they cannot make a decision about the future. Spending $176 000 for a consultant from Melbourne for 18 months to come up with a synopsis which now has to be consulted on is a joke, especially when the Chief Minister likes to laud his ‘buy local’ campaign. Where is their reality? There are people in the Territory who can do this. It further shows that this government does not support ‘buy local’, it does not support the Territory - it is just in paralysis.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. This industry seems to go through phases of reports. I recall the member for Casuarina being involved in a very similar synopsis, you might say, in the government’s attempts to bring in some control or sensibility to the taxi industry. It has been a hot potato for years and years. I wonder why, after a report which was not that long ago, we now have another report on the same industry. Is it because the industry felt that report, having been put into action, was not satisfactory and, therefore, we needed another report to find out whether we could do it a different way? I am not sure.
I am a bit worried that after eight years we have been unable to put to bed some system for taxis, minibuses and hire cars - a system that we do not have to tinker with every few years. You would think once we had a system in place that was working pretty well, we would go with it because this is an issue I have heard debated in parliament, on the radio, and in the newspapers. I hope whatever comes out of this particular report will last for a good number of years. People want a system that will work, that is practical, and the taxi owners, minibus drivers and hire car people are happy with, and which provides a good service, including in the rural area which sometimes gets left out in all of this debate. If anyone knows about the public transport system, they know why I say that because it is difficult at times to even get a taxi to the rural area.
I hope this achieves something practical which will improve the service and which all users and operators will be happy with.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling, the shadow for Transport, and the member for Nelson for their comments. I draw out of that the positive comments and their relationship to this government moving forward and planning for growth. The support for the report is the way to go. The negative comment from the shadow is to be expected.
The time frame is an interesting comment. However, let me say that this is an extensive consultation process that is ongoing. As the Minister for Transport, I am receiving very positive feedback from the industry about the synopsis that has been presented.
The shadow for Transport mentioned security. The report addresses security issues, and, in consultation with the industry, we are talking about increased security measures.
The member for Nelson has raised a very important point - transport in the rural area and in the regional areas or the Northern Territory. I am honoured to say that this is a big part of …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Fire Break Enforcement Program
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, no one in this House needs reminding of the destructive potential of bushfires. We were all saddened by the devastation suffered by Victorians earlier this year, and I am sure I speak for all Territorians when I say our hearts go out to them.
Our own fire season is upon us in the Territory and this government has been putting in hard work to ensure that Territorians are prepared and are safe. This government, through Bushfires NT, has been running a strong public awareness campaign to make landholders aware of their obligation to help fireproof our regions. The Fire Break Enforcement Program is targeted at landowners in the Katherine and Berrimah fire control regions, which runs from the Litchfield Council in the Darwin rural area to the bush blocks down below Katherine. In this area, conditions are particularly risky for wildfire outbreaks.
We are driving a public awareness campaign that focuses heavily on community education. Under the Bushfires Act, landowners are required to establish fire breaks on their land. We held a well publicised launch of the fire breaks campaign earlier this month to give landowners plenty of time to put their systems in place. Landowners must establish a 4-m fire access trail around their property and reduce their fuel loads. Bushfires NT Council officers are very effective at enforcing the fire break requirements. Affected landowners who do not put their fire breaks in place could face a fine of up to $5000 and will have to pay for a fire break to be installed by Bushfires NT.
Fortunately, the fire break campaign being driven by the government has proven very effective. Last year, 90% of landowners complied and made their fire access trails without intervention from Bushfires NT. Bushfires NT staff and volunteers are the key to the success of this program, and I am pleased to say that they are doing a fantastic job.
This government is also vigilant about bushfire control in Central Australia. We are enforcing 50 km fire protection zones around Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. No one is allowed to set fire to any bush or any other inflammable material within this zone unless they have a permit. We are doing everything possible, as a government, to protect Territorians, their land, and our unique landscape from the fury of bushfires.
We have best practice bushfire prevention and control methods in place and the support of the community to ensure we are fully prepared for the start of the bushfire season.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. Fire is a contentious issue and it has been for a long time, especially in the rural area. Whether to burn or not to burn has always been a source of debate. What we have to come up with, and it is not something new, it has been discussed for many years, is a practical way of dealing with fire.
Fire is part of the environment, part of the way we manage the environment, and although, as the minister said, we need to encourage people to put their 4-m fire breaks in, if you back up to a large block of National Park, government land, even large blocks of private land, a 4-m fire break will do nothing. There are areas which need to be burnt for the protection of some of those smaller properties. The government also has a responsibility to ensure its land is up to the standard they are asking private people to comply with. This is an area the government needs to look at.
There are environmental issues of too much burning, as against too little burning. There is a move now to burn late, at the beginning of the Wet Season, when many plants are not actually adapted to those sorts of fires. There is much debate about whether that is the right way to go.
It is strange we have the Bushfires Council and the NT Fire Service volunteers; in my area, we have the NT Fire Service volunteers, who are doing a similar job to the Bushfires people. In some of the areas of my electorate, the Bushfire Council people have to drive through the Northern Territory Fire Service area to get to the area they control. Somewhere along the line we need to look at rationalising these two fire services and make sure we do not duplicate services, and the areas they control are practical. Maybe one day we will join them together.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I also thank the minister. I had a briefing recently in Katherine from the NT Bushfire Council and it was pleasing to hear that a number of issues have been tackled by this government. In fact, the Bushfire Council praised the former member for Karama, and the current minister, for going through with additional funding which was used to replace older radios, two-way communications and so forth. It was a really valuable contribution and, as I said, they are very grateful for the money that has come through.
There is much being said about these 4-m fire breaks. Most people understand that is 4 m either side which is 8 m, which is a good break. There is also much talk about a chequered approach to burning within the Northern Territory, whether that is a successful way of moving into the future. As the member for Nelson pointed out, sometimes we could be accused of over-burning in certain areas.
Earlier this year I travelled to Melbourne and also visited the Kinglake area - I put on the record now that it was a privately funded trip, before anyone tries to jump on it. To see the devastation of that area because of a situation borne not only from our inability to manage the resources in these bushfire prone areas, where legislation made people build houses and have trees right up to houses with no clearing whatsoever, but also because of the weather patterns at the time was absolutely unbelievable. I saw firsthand the devastation fire causes and became aware of the ongoing problems they have with water and with run-off into the catchment areas. They have had some tragic things happening down there, and I hope it can be managed well.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both the member for Brennan and the member for Nelson for their comments. I thank the NT Bushfires Council and all our volunteers in the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory government for putting together this education campaign to alert Territorians to the dangers of fire and how we can keep our properties and our families safe.
Broadband in the Northern Territory
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, earlier this month the Commonwealth unveiled a proposal to position Australia as a global leader in broadband. This proposal includes establishing a company to invest up to $43bn over eight years to build and operate a national broadband network. The network will connect 90% of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with fibre optic broadband with speeds of up to 100 megabytes per second - 100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses.
All other premises will be connected with the Next Generation wireless and satellite technologies, delivering broadband speeds of 12 megabytes per second. Despite a clumsy misinformation campaign by the opposition, doing the bidding of their Canberra Liberal masters, the Northern Territory has not, and will not, be left off the single largest nation building infrastructure project in Australian history.
Last Friday I met with Senator Stephen Conroy, the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I took the opportunity to impress upon Senator Conroy the importance of broadband to Territorians, and to seek his assurances we would be covered by the national broadband network. Senator Conroy confirmed that while the detail of which communities will be covered by fibre, wireless or satellite technology has not been finalised, all Australian premises will have a significantly improved service to what is currently available. In other words, all Territorians will benefit from enhanced broadband services under the national broadband network.
The Northern Territory government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to improving access to broadband in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. The Broadbanding the Top End project, which is a partnership between the Northern Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council, will deliver high speed broadband to 10 communities across Arnhem Land. Some 800 km of optic fibre has been laid and is operational at Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ramingining, Marparu, Gapuwiyak, Yirrkala, and Nhulunbuy.
With the onset of the Dry Season, work crews will soon be completing the high power radio mix for Minjilang, Milingimbi, Warruwi and Galiwinku. Health clinics, schools and police stations along the Arnhem fibre route have already sought to upgrade the capacity of their lines so they can take advantage of the access to high speed broadband. Residents are now able to use high speed broadband at the same cost and service levels as people enjoy in Alice Springs and Darwin. So far there have been an additional 130 new residential broadband users in Nhulunbuy alone, with a further 50 new subscribers in the mainland communities. In addition, there have been nearly 20 new business users subscribe along the link to date.
Access to broadband will complement this government’s Closing the Gap initiatives to address Indigenous disadvantage of better service delivery across a range of areas including health, education and business.
My meeting with Senator Conroy in Melbourne last week was the most recent in a series of discussions which I and the Department of Business and Employment have had with the Commonwealth. High on that agenda is the federal government’s commitment to invest $250m to provide backbone optic fibre links to areas like the Northern Territory which do not currently have a competitive fibre link.
I will continue to lobby the Australian government for the best possible outcomes for all Territorians. I will keep the Assembly informed of the progress as it occurs.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. One of the best things he said is that he will continue to lobby the government if that is what is needed.
The government has put out a plan without any content in it, and is going to miss many of our Territory people. It is true that the Territory will get some of the benefits of broadband. However, it is disgusting to think that towns of less than 1000 will miss out, which means if you live in Adelaide River you are likely to miss out; Ti Tree, Ali Curung, Papunya, the list goes on - Mataranka, for instance. These places have the fibre optic running through their main streets in some circumstances; how is it likely from the government’s so-called plan, they will miss out? They have initially set very few standards, but one of those standards is it will be townships of less than 1000. It is not going to be acceptable. I hope you put pressure on your Labor mates because they need pressure put on them.
The plan is flawed. It is hollow. It is nothing but a way to wash money and to think they put so much effort into getting the plan forward, to chop it up and say: ‘No, we will run it ourselves’, and put many more billions of dollars down the tube without a plan.
Consider that the Territory still has the least amount of mobile phone coverage on its national highway. Anyone who looks at our mobile phone coverage on our national highways sees once it hits the Territory, it goes hollow. It needs to be addressed, so take it up to your mates. Tell them it is not good enough and we need better coverage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I will not raise the issue of mobile phones, member for Stuart.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report but, from my point of view, I want to have some direct answers to questions. People in my part of the world, the Litchfield Shire, still cannot get simple ADSL - there are people in McMinns, there are people in Howard River Park. Well, if you can call Howard River Park a town, then they probably have no hope because there are probably fewer than 1000 people there. Litchfield Shire has 17 000 people so I am interested to know whether this will help those people who live quite close to a major region and cannot get ADSL at the moment. Will it change it? Those people have tried and tried; they have lobbied Telstra time and time again, and the answer is that it is a long way off before they will get ADSL. I am honing this down into specific areas because those people want to know if this will change their ability to get onto high speed broadband.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their comments. Member for Drysdale, your comments are not surprising in the least. We are actually delivering on some of the commitments to high speed broadband, such as the East Arnhem fibre optic links; unlike your colleague, Senator Scullion, in his unmet commitment to date.
Member for Nelson, one of the big issues we face in the Northern Territory is competition. Access to a second fibre optic link through the backbone of the Northern Territory will certainly assist with some of the issues you have raised for your constituents. We need competition; we need a second line so people have choice and prices and coverage are met, as well. We, as a Labor government, have been lobbying for broadband infrastructure since 2005, particularly a competitive backhaul network throughout the Northern Territory. It is interesting that our lobbying fell on deaf ears when the Liberals were in power, so it is quite cute for the member for Drysdale to banter away here.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to lobby our mates in Canberra and get the best deal for all Territorians.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
RADIATION PROTECTION AND RADIOGRAPHERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 36)
(Serial 36)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Bill will amend the Radiographers Act and the, as yet not commenced, Radiation Protection Act, to allow for the continued professional registration of radiographers in the Northern Territory. The Radiation Protection Act calls for the repeal of the Radiographers Act, a provision that has been resisted consistently by radiographers across the Northern Territory. During a meeting between radiographers and the former minister for Health in 2006, it was agreed to identify options for retaining the professional registration requirements for radiographers. The amendment bill is a result of that consultation.
Since the drafting of the Radiation Protection Act, most other jurisdictions have endorsed the findings of the Vocational Education, Employment and Training Committee which recommended medical radiation technologists, a group which include radiographers, be registered in all jurisdictions to advance mutual recognition arrangements. The changes to the Radiographers Act and the Radiation Protection Act achieves that, and brings the mode of operation in the Northern Territory in line with that of most other Australian jurisdictions.
Radiographers across Australia are lobbying strongly for national registration, and believe they now satisfy all criteria for this to take place. Retaining registration radiographers in the Northern Territory will ensure a smooth transition towards national registration.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Radiation Protection and Radiographers Amendment Bill 2009 to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee 2009-10 and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2009-10 pursuant to the terms circulated to members yesterday.
This is quite a usual procedural motion around Estimates Committee. It is the same motion that has been put, more or less, since the Estimates Committee has been formed, and I commend it to members.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, of course, we will be supporting this motion. The Estimates Committee has become the vehicle by which we trawl through the government’s budget and determine whether or not it is a useful vehicle by which to advance and prosper the Northern Territory.
However, yet again, it goes without saying that the Estimates Committee is not what it could be. The Estimates Committee, of course, binds ministers to, essentially, six hours each, which means that some ministers with carriage of large portfolio areas can hide behind the cover of non-exhaustive questioning. Whereas, in the system which existed before during the budget process, the estimates process was carried out in this House, not in a room upstairs, and all ministers were asked questions to the exhaustion of questions to be put to them.
The arrangements that currently exist is that the same time will be allotted to a junior minister with one or two portfolios as it will be to a senior minister, or even the Chief Minister, and it is a disproportionate representation of the amounts of money that have been spent. If you were to consider the Health budget, for argument’s sake, within the context of the estimates process, which will now consume more than a quarter, I would guess, of what the budget will be, then, seriously, the Health budget deserves 10 or 11 hours worth of scrutiny - that is one particular model.
The truth of the matter is, the estimates process could be improved, should be improved, and I ask the government at some point in the near future to revisit, particularly the issue of those timings, but also the possibility of asking questions of the ministers to exhaustion, so that there are no questions left over at the end of the estimates process; there are no unanswered questions when we come back into this place and pass a budget which will authorise the expenditure or the drawing down of probably close to $3bn from the Central Holding Authority, as well as authorise the expenditure of federal government monies as well, through the SPPs and NP arrangements.
It is the right of Territorians to know where their tax dollars are going. Every time a Territorian buys a product at a shop, they pay tax. If they work and they are on a payroll of over $1.25m, then their employer pays a payroll tax. They pay taxes indirectly, because the royalties that are paid will be recovered by many mining companies from the product that ultimately ends up on the shelf. Territorians are taxpayers and they have a right to have their budgets scrutinised to the point where scrutiny is over, not to satisfy some arbitrary time limit which happens to suit the government and the way it approaches budgetary planning.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for supporting this motion. I know there are a number of new members to the Assembly who have not been through an estimates process before and I, like the member for Port Darwin, commend the experience to them. It is a great opportunity to inquire of government, and to inquire directly, through the minister, of public servants exactly about programs and outcomes. I have always found it, as a backbencher and also as a minister, a very good way of getting a handle on government business and what departments do. I believe it is a very important process for all of us, on both sides of the House.
New members may not be aware that it was this government, when we came into office in 2001, which instituted the estimates process, and I had the honour of being the Chair of the Estimates Committee at that time. We went to Tasmania to see firsthand how Estimates works in a parliament approximately the size of this one. Our estimates processes are modelled quite closely on what happens in Tasmania, except, of course, they have an Upper House and there is some duplication in the estimates process.
It could be said, and always could be said, that we need more time for estimates, but I believe four-and-a-half hours is sufficient if the time is managed properly – the first thing, and if there is strategic questioning.
Mr Elferink: That is ridiculous. That is a ridiculous statement.
Dr BURNS: It is the job of the opposition to come forward with your questions, with your strategies, with the areas you are going to focus on; and obviously you will do that.
Mr Elferink: Why can we not focus on the whole budget? Why do we have to focus on parts of it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As new shadow ministers, I believe it is a great experience for you. Everyone not only looks at the ministers, but they also look at the opposition side and think: ‘Well, member for X was on the ball with their particular questions, and asked very good questions’. It sorts the wheat from the chaff, as it were, in terms of opposition members, who is moving up the scale and who might be staying where they are. It is an opportunity for everyone. I commend it.
There is a process, as you will find out. I believe from our side, we try to answer as well as we can the questions that are asked of us, and those we do not have the information for right there and then we undertake to answer before that session of estimates ends. We do try to get the public service to come back with the answers.
Once again, it comes back to resources. One member may have even asked, at one stage, how many bed pans there were at a particular hospital - which is a little hard to answer. But crucial strategic questions are welcome.
From the minister’s side, we welcome the process of estimates. I certainly do because it is a way, not only to inquire about what ministers do, but to inquire about what departments do, and as the member for Port Darwin said, it is really something for the people of the Northern Territory. I commend the experience. They are long days and long nights but they can be very fruitful. I am very much looking forward to estimates 2009-10.
Motion agreed to.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 37)
(Serial 37)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Financial Management Act to reflect the new federal financial arrangements as a result of the intergovernmental agreement signed at COAG in November 2008.
The new agreements reduce a number of Special Purpose Payments from almost 100 to five, and introduce a new type of funding, called National Partnerships, that promote reform and innovation in service delivery. This agreement also streamlines funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
Under previous arrangements, tied Commonwealth funding was paid by Commonwealth line agencies directly to state and territory line agencies. With the new arrangements, funding in the form of Specific Purpose Payments and National Partnership Agreements will be paid by the Commonwealth Treasury to state and territory treasuries. The payments will then be on-passed to relevant line agencies.
In order to achieve the most appropriate mechanism to implement the new arrangements, a review was undertaken of the Territory’s financial management framework and the associated provisions of the Financial Management Act. Consistent with the approach adopted by other jurisdictions, tied funding from the Commonwealth will now be received into the Central Holding Authority and paid to the agencies in the form of an appropriation.
In order to facilitate this change, a new appropriation purpose termed ‘Commonwealth Appropriation’ has been established. In establishing this new appropriation purpose it was also necessary to take into consideration the sometimes significant and unanticipated increases in Commonwealth funding that can occur during the year. Examples of this are the payments resulting from the Northern Territory Emergency Response and the more recent Nation Building and Jobs Plan Fiscal Stimulus Package. These amounts are outside the Territory’s control. The different nature and magnitude of the new appropriation necessitates an alternative approach to varying this type of appropriation.
Commonwealth appropriation will need to be varied in line with Commonwealth revenue received for Special Purpose Payments and National Partnerships. A new provision has been established in the form of a standing appropriation to allow changes in Commonwealth funding throughout the year. Under this standing appropriation, the Treasurer will have the authority to increase the Commonwealth appropriation to match a variation to an existing or new Commonwealth agreement.
It is appropriate for the Treasurer to authorise such increases in appropriation for Commonwealth-funded activities, as once an agreement with a Commonwealth has been reached for new or increased funding, there will be no choice but to authorise an increase in Commonwealth appropriation. This new provision is consistent with that of other jurisdictions. However, in order to provide further accountability, transparency and consistency with other variations to appropriation, the new section will also require the Treasurer to table a statement of the increase within six sitting days of the Assembly.
As you know, under the current arrangements appropriation can be increased during a financial year up to a maximum of 5% of total appropriations. This provision will now apply to total appropriation, excluding Commonwealth appropriation.
It is a new funding arrangement commenced on 1 January 2009. The proposed amendments will be retrospectively applied. This also necessitates the introduction of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill scheduled to be tabled later in these sittings. Accordingly, this amendment bill is required to be enacted before the commencement of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill, the Appropriation 2009-10 Bill and prior to 30 June 2009.
The requirement to amend the Financial Management Act to accommodate the arrangements has provided an opportunity for other contemporary changes and administrative amendments to be made. These include additional definitions, the repealing of redundant sections and the alignment of reporting requirements with the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY BILL
(Serial 22)
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it was just a couple of months ago in this House, in the last sittings, that I saw the most extraordinary thing occur. The member for Johnston, in moving that this House adjourn, if my memory serves me correctly, leapt to his feet at a speed that was somewhat befitting a superhero - the first one that sprung to mind was the Flash. In fact, the movement was so fast and sudden that it prompted a colleague of mine, the member for Port Darwin, to refer to that sudden movement by the member for Johnston as ‘blue shifting’. For those who do not know what blue shifting is it is a term that relates to a phenomenon that happens at a speed close to the speed of light and, in fact, it was a compliment of a kind. What it does is illustrate and demonstrate just how quickly members of this government can move when it suits their purpose; and that was designed to adjourn the debate and gag the opposition, again. We have all talked ad nauseam about how the government does that to us.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the introduction of the geothermal legislation in this parliament. On 14 February 2006, more than three years ago, the member for Casuarina promised in this House that there would be a geothermal bill by late 2006. Well, that came and went fairly well. On 26 October 2006, the then minister Natt put out a press release promising another geothermal bill. Christmas came and went and, on 15 February 2007, then minister Natt again promised this parliament there would be another geothermal bill.
It is going to be a little tedious to hear all this, Madam Speaker, but the government was mysteriously quiet on the issue for another nine months or so and then minister Natt again promised the parliament that geothermal legislation was being developed. Finally, the Chief Minister chimed into the debate and on 21 February 2008 he re-announced to the parliament the importance of geothermal energy saying it was one of the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory.
This critical issue is now enshrined in this bill some three years after it was first announced by the government, as opposed to the blue shifting member for Johnston who leapt to his feet at such a great rate of knots. This bill moved at a pace somewhat more akin to its natural surroundings deep inside the earth or, more specifically, it has been moving faster than a speeding tectonic plate. However, it is pleasing that we finally do have a geothermal bill and that the government has got its act together on this.
I support this bill today, with a few words of caution thrown into the mix. First, I thank the minister for Resources for providing a briefing, not only on the bill as a whole but also on the amendments which will be placed before the House today. As usual, the Resource department staff was very helpful and accommodating. In examining the bill and the recent amendments it appears to have most, if not all, the bases covered, particularly given that it is very new legislation. In reality, what will happen now is that we will wait to see how it works in practical application; there well may be some issues that need to be solved as time goes by. However, I am still a little bewildered over the three-year thing and how, only two weeks ago, there were still amendments coming in. I would have thought they would have been quite on top of it by then. Anyway, here we have it.
The intention of the bill is to introduce regulatory requirements to allow commercial and sustainable exploration and extraction of geothermal energy resources. It seems this bill was drafted somewhat along the lines of the Mining Act, Petroleum Act, and the Mining Management Act; there also seems to be some similarities to the Victorian Geothermal Act. Other jurisdictions have introduced geothermal legislation by way of introducing amendments to existing acts, but the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources has decided to create a new legislative instrument for simplicity, and to more easily make changes which may be needed as the industry develops. I believe it is wise to make geothermal legislation stand alone.
Activities under the geothermal bill will also be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act and regulations. Other OHS provisions have been built into the bill as well. Speaking of offences, one of the matters I wish to explore in the committee stage of this debate relates to clause 99(2), continuing offences, and the penalty provisions which are contained therein.
Under the bill the exploration leases are generous, up to 2000 adjoining blocks, and that can be made larger with ministerial approval. There are measures in place to prevent prospectors sitting on large tracts of land for an extended time.
There is provision that enables regulations to be created for the payment of royalties from geothermal energy production in clause 34 but, at the time of briefing, the department did not know how much, or how royalties would be applied in the Northern Territory. Western Australia and South Australia have set their royalties for geothermal energy at 2.5% of the gross value; that is, the well-head price of the product that is produced. The money from any geothermal royalties in Western Australia will be placed in a low-energy emissions fund which will enable the future development and investment in low-emission technology and infrastructure. The amount of royalties in Victoria is determined by the minister on each individual licence. Queensland’s petroleum royalty is currently at 10%, and it is assumed that the energy from geothermal resources will fall into this category. New South Wales has a 4% royalty charge on the ex-mine value of the geothermal substances.
The reason I raise the issue of royalties is because the government will have to consider this matter as time goes by, and compose and implement a royalty regime that meets the balance between providing revenue for the government, yet still encourages the development of the industry by the commercial sector.
There are four main types of geothermal energy. Hydrothermal is the first, whereby naturally occurring hot water is brought to the Earth’s surface and used to create electricity or to provide direct heating. Currently, this is the only source that is used to generate commercially viable energy. However, that is not the type of geothermal energy that appears to exist in the Northern Territory. The next is geopressure where dissolved methane is extracted from hot water brought up from depths of between 3 km and 6 km.
Hot dry rock is the third type, and this is the type of geothermal energy source that exploration has identified as being available in the Northern Territory. There is a large tract of land that starts somewhere just north of Tennant Creek, moves to the north and north-east off to the south of Katherine a little and, then up into Arnhem Land which has been identified as carrying the right type of heat signatures at 5 km depth that might facilitate geothermal energy extraction. The process of using hot dry rock involves the pumping of water at high pressures into the Earth’s crust onto rock which does not contain fissures or fractures, creating a reservoir of superheated water that can be drawn back to the surface for creating power.
The fourth type is the extraction of magma, and there is no practical means of extracting magma energy at this point in time.
All that said, geothermal energy, in reality, is still very much a fledgling industry. South Australia and Tasmania both have small scale geothermal production facilities, but this source of energy for Australia has very far to go. I am pleased that federal and state governments have been proactive in introducing legislation to provide a regulatory framework for geothermal energy. Pleasing also is the fact that governments have facilitated and supported the research, development and implementation of small scale geothermal exploration. The federal government has pumped many millions of dollars into geothermal research but it is, of course, much bigger overseas.
The federal government program has committed around $500m into development - $425m of that to deal with renewable energy production; a $50m specific grant for geothermal drilling; and $25m for a second generation biofuel program. There was $10m invested in a geodynamic drilling project under renewable energy funding in 2008 in New South Wales, and just over $28m spent by the federal government and South Australian government, which was invested in a couple of projects in South Australia.
Government funding is not the only way to source funds to work on geothermal energy. In one example, an international company recently applied to the World Bank’s GeoFund for $US9m to support projects in a number of countries overseas. This is the type of funding opportunity that might well exist for geothermal explorers, not only in the Northern Territory, but for the rest of Australia as well.
On the basis that other states have provided significant funding opportunities to develop geothermal in their patches, I am hoping that the Northern Territory government also looks upon geothermal with the same warm and fuzzy glow. However, a word of caution here - whilst everything in its power should be done by government to promote and facilitate geothermal energy in the Territory, I would urge at this point some degree of restraint when it comes to spending a great deal of money in these tight times. The Territory government has already plunged us into a $200m black hole and we are in the middle of a global financial crisis; we are in the grips of recession and will be for some time, and it will take years to pay back the debt that the government has visited upon Territorians.
While it is important to provide resources to promote geothermal in the Territory, as a government, you must also look upon the time frame for a return on your investment. A $1m spend next year, for example, may not see any return through royalties for many years to come given the very early stages that geothermal is at in Australia. There is an enormous amount of research and development that needs to be undertaken before the processes of extracting power from hot dry rock to geothermal energy are brought to commercial fruition.
I see the government’s 2030 draft plan talks about a future fund of some kind. That may well be an option for the royalty revenue that geothermal will bring to the Territory. However, more to the point is, and the government would do well to consider this once they have established a royalty regime, and that is pushing those royalties towards research into other renewable energy.
The Northern Territory has abundant sunshine, for example, yet, other than by way of a small trial in Central Australia, there is little or nothing being done by the government to develop and promote solar power. The Northern Territory is also a very windy place, just ask the member for Barkly. Tennant Creek possess more wind than the combined power of the rhetoric-driven hot air that comes from the government across the way, yet I see little or no evidence in exploring wind power as a source of power in the Northern Territory. In fact, organisations such an ANZSES, the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, seem to be doing far more in the field of renewable energy than that being undertaken by the Northern Territory government at present.
Fortunately, the Renewable and Remote Power Generation Program, a federally funded program, provides cash rebates for people installing renewable energy solutions in place of fossil fuel generation, but still the NT government’s commitment to exploring alternative energy sources seems to be stuck in some sort of prehistoric Labor tar pit.
The other alternative energy sources which I have mentioned, wind and solar, have been around for much longer than geothermal and represent two of the proven forms of renewable energy. It almost beggars belief that so little has been done to look at how these other sources of renewable energy can be harnessed in the Territory. Another form of renewable energy that this government needs to look at, particularly given the huge range of water movement in the Northern Territory, is tidal power. Like geothermal, this is a fledgling industry and much needs to be done to explore this as an alternative to fossil fuel power generation.
It is almost incredulous that I stand here today talking about renewable energy such as geothermal yet, in a complete slap in the face to renewable energy concepts, is the woeful record this government has on spending money to run its diesel power generation system. Last year, 22 million litres of diesel fuel went through Channel Island costing somewhere in the vicinity of $28m. That only relates to Channel Island; it does not relate to any of the regional or remote locations in the Territory. That is an enormous amount of money which could well have been saved; or part of it, at least, could have gone into research and development of other renewable sources. It is very disappointing that Territorians have had to foot the bill for what really is just lack of action, a lack of follow-up, by the government in getting Black Tip online.
This legislation has been a promise from the Labor government since February 2006, and the Country Liberals have been vocal in its support for legislation of this nature and critical of Labor for taking so long to get it up and running, and we remain critical.
The bill is supported by the opposition. I urge the government not to hide behind this legislation as its sole commitment to low emission energy. Much more support will be needed in this area to make it a viable alternative energy supply.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome this legislation. I know the member for Katherine has spoken about the CLP’s support for this legislation but I say, if you will pardon me, that I believe I was pushing this barrow for much longer than the CLP. Geothermal is an issue I raised from the first time I came into parliament.
I take up many of the points the member for Katherine has made about looking at some of the other forms of energy. Yesterday I raised using solar, wind, and some of the gas we are getting from Black Tip to take away dependency on diesel, especially in remote communities. The issue is similar to Japan’s philosophy about energy: we do not need put all our eggs in one basket. Our energy sources should be broad so if one energy source fails at least we have other energy sources.
I also believe we need to divide our energy into, you might say, a light load type of energy as compared with heavy based requirements for energy. Most people could probably run their house on solar or wind as long as they had adequate storage of the energy, which is in a battery form, at night or when the wind is not blowing or when the sun is behind the clouds.
The Territory is a great place to develop that type of industry where we are less reliant on other forms of energy. The reality is that we also require heavier forms of energy if we want to have a manufacturing industry. An aluminium industry requires enormous amounts of power and, therefore, we must look at other sources of energy. Geothermal, if it can be shown to be viable, is one of a suite of forms of energy which could be used in Australia.
I do not have any problem saying I support nuclear power, as well. I do not say it is the be-all and end-all. Look at Japan’s range of power options: it has nuclear, coal, oil, LNG - which comes from Australia and other places, solar and wind. It is not saying one is necessarily better than the other; it is saying that a sensible option, when it comes to future power sources, is to look at a range of power sources.
I always wonder when people go crook about nuclear energy as a legitimate form of energy if they know that American submarines have been going around for about the last 50 years with a little box of uranium, and there have been very few incidents. They travel for over a year without being refuelled. They can have a source of power in a very small room that can drive a large submarine for months on end. People may have concerns about nuclear, especially regards waste, but technology changes and we move on. Let us not close ourselves off from these options. After all, the reality is we are one of the biggest exporters of uranium in the world and that comes from our own area, the Northern Territory.
If we are discussing geothermal as a source of energy from hot dry rocks there is probably some doubt as to whether you can class it as a renewable form of energy. In the end, you are taking heat from granite and that granite actually heats up the water – by the way, it is radioactive granite – and eventually that water will cool down. So you need to have other places where you can get heated water, which may be in the vicinity but, in the end, that source of water will lose its heat and not be renewable unless you want to come back in maybe a million years’ time when it has been able to reheat again.
I do not think it is fair to say that the hot dry rock method of geothermal energy is strictly a renewable form of energy. What I would say is that it is a very clean form of energy; it has very few pollutants. As far as I know it has no carbon emissions, although people always say to produce the equipment to build a geothermal plant you will require carbon emissions, but they apply that to the argument against nuclear power; you can apply it to any form of generation. You will have to produce carbon emissions to produce a generator until you find a form of energy that does not produce carbon, and a form of energy that can be used in manufacturing heavy equipment like steel and aluminium and those types of products.
Madam Speaker, this bill is really not a statement; I do not believe it will necessarily send the Northern Territory off onto a path of great activity in relation to exploration. It is very expensive for geothermal technology to happen.
I have looked at the Innamincka fields, and they are really at the limits of drilling. They use the oil industry which is a partner in the development of the Innamincka fields through the company, Geodynamics - and there are no other companies. They are drilling down to 4 km, which are some of the deepest holes ever drilled. That requires special techniques. It is not only at the edge of the technology; it is also at the edge of how many dollars you can spend as it is very expensive.
That is why I am a little disappointed with the federal government. The federal government is pouring millions into finding a way to get rid of carbon. One of the methods is trying to pump it into the ground. I picked up a very interesting article from the Melbourne Age, on Monday in the business section. The headline is ‘King coal’s push for carbon storage an impossible dream’. It talks about a gentleman called Graham Brown who, it says, calls a spade ‘a bloody shovel’. It says he:
- … has his own theory on why money is being wasted on a technology few have faith in.
Brown, from the Hunter Valley in NSW, originally worked in the construction industry, in open-cut and
underground coalmines, including for Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton.
He is a staunch unionist but does not toe the line on CCS parroted by officials from the Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.
I think he joined the New South Wales Greens as well; he does not regard himself as a politician. He says in relation to storing it underground, and I will read from the article:
- Then there is the problem of getting the stored carbon into the ground or beneath the sea floor. Brown says a
mining industry is needed to put it in the ground - and that creates more carbon.
There is also the risk of leakage. ‘You’re talking about a lot of pressure, and there’s heaps of cracks. It’s only
got to come out through a slow leak, and it’s all for nothing. The second you put it into the ground, the more it
will expand. If you’re going to put it a kilometre underground where the temperature might be 65C, it’s going
to expand a monstrous amount’.
He also talks about how you would transport this gas to wherever it has to go, which people do not understand. He said:
- A tonne of carbon is about 500 cubic metres, as a gas at sea level at room temperature.
If you have to move this somewhere, because a coal-fired power station might be nowhere near the land that is so-called suitable for injection of this carbon; that also has to be taken into account. The article said:
- Transporting 20 million tonnes of highly compressed gas is no mean feat. ‘Look at the infrastructure that needs to
be in place to get 80 million tonnes of coal to port’, says Brown. ‘Moving gas is a different kettle of fish to moving
coal … because it’s got to be stored in an intrinsically safe way - either pipe or trucks or trains’.
He says the only place we may be able to store gas is in the Cooper Basin, which is near where the geothermal activity is. So, we have a person who has worked in the coal industry for a long time, who has taken the effort to look at the business of storing carbon in the ground, and says it is, basically, just a pipe dream. I tend to agree; it is unproven technology. The government is pouring money into it hoping to come up with a solution because many people work for the coal industry in Australia; it is a very big industry.
However, if you compare the money the government is putting into so-called technology in regard to storing carbon, and the amount of money they are putting into developing a clean form of heavy-based energy - that is, geothermal - it is a pittance. They announced some money in the budget - I believe it is only $12m or $14m and it will probably be over so many years - but it is chicken feed compared with what has been given to the coal industry. We really should be asking the federal government, if it believes in finding alternative clean forms of energy, why it is not pouring much more money into this possibility of a heavy-based energy source.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the bill which has been presented today. It is only the beginning; it may be many years before it actually happens, because, the Northern Territory you have to realise, has 200000 people, most of those, about two-thirds, live in the Darwin region. You need to have this source of energy fairly close to populated areas, at least large populated areas, so you can pay for the cost of transmitting electricity from those areas. It may not yet be the time to develop a viable geothermal industry at the present time, but we have to start somewhere, we have to give companies the ability to start looking for it. You never know, the technology might improve to a point where it is much easier to drill; we may be able to have small scale geothermal generating plants which may be quite suitable for outback communities.
This is the first stage; technology changes. As I said with uranium, what we did with nuclear power plants in the 1950s may be totally different to what we do in the next half a century or so. We need to keep our minds open in regard to technology. I do not believe we need to go back and say everything will be run on solar and wind. That is a foolish attitude. Some people may still believe we should walk everywhere and only eat herbs. We are a growing population that requires jobs, that requires energy, and we need to ensure we work towards the future as energy will be the lifeblood of our country in how successful we are into the future. If we can be dependent on our own energy sources that will be really important in the way the world is running to date.
I am very pleased to see some changes in the bill. I have read this document from one end to the other and, unfortunately, the government decided there were a few errors in it. Then it came back another month or two later and it is hard to remember all the information you read that long ago.
I had a good briefing from the department, and I thank the minister for that. I am particularly happy with the section where this act now binds the Crown. In the previous act it did not bind the Crown, and I thought that was a bit rich. It is like saying: ‘If you people want to drill for geothermal energy, you have to stick with this lot of rules.’ The Crown does not have to that because, as you know, the Crown has the ability to undertake exploration of its own. I welcome the change. I believe the government needs to come under the same rules as the rest of us when it comes to exploring for geothermal energy.
Many of the other changes also make a lot of sense. It is a big bill, and I imagine it is difficult to get it right the first time. The only comment I would make is it is a pity, even though it has been delayed once, it may have come back as a completely rewritten bill because this is the first bill and it is going to have amendments from day one. If I were putting it forward, I would like the bill to be correct at the stage of introduction rather than having to make a number of amendments to the it, because it looks like it was not quite right - which it was not - and it shows to whoever reads this bill that the first time quite a few changes needed to happen.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I also support some of the comments of the member for Johnston. We are talking about energy which needs continual debate. We are pushing for carbon reduction. We seem to be scared to talk about nuclear. We do not put enough money into things like geothermal. If we are fair dinkum, we should look at all options.
I have some doubts about the carbon tax. I know what is trying to be achieved, but I do not know if we will have this massive bureaucracy which will work out complicated formulas to decide how much this industry pays in carbon tax, and how much that one pays in carbon tax. I would like someone to say: ‘Let us look at this from an efficiency angle. Is this worth all the effort?’ Will we produce more carbon producing all the paper required to document the carbon tax we are going to collect, etcetera, and all the extra people who have to be employed and who travel around, and all these types of things? Are we making life more complicated than we need to? What we should be doing is phasing out our coal industry; phasing it out, because it is the industry in rural Australia keeping people employed; phasing it out and looking at new technologies. And not just wind and solar. Tidal is important, too and has been working in the Apsley Strait, between Bathurst and Melville Islands; but there are issues about tidal.
We also need to focus on technology we know it clean. We know geothermal is clean. We know nuclear is clean. It does have some issues. I believe Australia leads the way in dealing with waste, but I do not believe we should be shutting ourselves off to being broadminded enough to move away from what I call the ‘religious debate’, where some members of the Greens bring this debate to a point where you are a heretic if you disagree with them. We should be broadminded enough to discuss these issues as they are important issues.
Regardless of whether you believe in global warming, or the world being heated up, from my point of view it is about whether you should pollute. You do not throw rubbish into the river and you do not chuck rubbish onto the road. Why should you put rubbish into the air? To me, that is the basic philosophy. If it happens to have an effect on heating the world, then that is a side effect we should not have even got to. We should be careful in what we do - if you are talking about container deposits - it is an issue about not wasting, doing things the right way; looking after our environment by doing the right thing.
Let us encourage broader debate on this issue. I ask the Northern Territory government to see whether they can get the federal government to put more money into geothermal because I believe it is well worth it. It is an option amongst many other options. I thank the government for introducing this bill today.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill. Geothermal energy capture and legislation is not new, nor is it special here in Australia or around the world. Temperatures in the Earth increase by 10C to 50C per kilometre around the planet. For example, the crust of the Earth is around 30 km deep and has temperatures ranging from 15 C near the surface to 540C near the base of the crust. The bulk of this heat is generated from radioactive decay of naturally occurring potassium, thorium and uranium isotopes in the minerals in the upper crust of the Earth. The geothermal energy power generation is about capturing this heat and turning it into energy.
The first geothermal power plant was invented and built around 1904, which tells us that it is not a new form of energy or technology. It was at a place called Larderello in Italy by a fellow called Prince Piero Ginori Conti. The first modern geothermal power plants were also built in this town in Italy. They were completely destroyed in World War II and rebuilt, and today after 90 years, this field in Italy is still producing geothermal energy.
The first geothermal power plants in the United States were built around 1962 at the Geysers dry steam field in northern California. It is still the largest producing geothermal field in the world. Across the globe there are over 26 countries that have either geothermal technology and/or plants including New Zealand, Japan, America, Thailand, France, Italy, Kenya, Zambia, the Philippines and Mexico, and many more. In Australia, South Australia is well-known for its geothermal activity and has around 51 permits and five applications since 1999 involving around 10 companies.
Australia’s geothermal energy resources have the potential to become a significant source of secure, renewable, low emissions base-load power for the future. Preliminary resource evaluation work by Geoscience Australia have suggested just 1% of the energy from rocks hotter than 150C and shallower than 5000 m would yield approximately 190 million petajoules of energy, or about 26 000 times Australia’s primary usage in 2005.
To date geothermal energy has played a minimal role in the country’s energy mix, with only one small, remote plant in operation at Birdsville, Queensland. During the last decade, however, interest in geothermal energy has increased significantly due, I believe, to two major factors. First, research into Australia’s geothermal resources has provided evidence that electricity generation from geothermal resources is possible in Australia; and second, the challenge posed by climate change has become a significant driver for policy development by governments at all levels.
Over the last 10 years there has been a reasonable level of research which indicates that Australia, and the Territory, has a significant geothermal energy resource. Regions of high crustal temperature at depths of greater than 5 km may be economic targets for hot dry rock technology. A new database has been developed for the country which has meant newer and improved maps for use by industry and government. However, while there have been improvements in the data and the knowledge, the latter work builds on previous work and, as a consequence, data distribution across the continent still tends to be patchy and irregular with some regions well represented and others not. Much of the data is sourced from petroleum exploration and production wells and, as a result, there is a strong tendency for it to cluster within known hydrocarbon provinces.
In the Territory, the area most referenced in research is the McArthur Basin which is the land in the northeast of the Territory from the coast through to just north of Tennant Creek which takes in the Mataranka and the Daly regions. Other areas in the Territory include an area in the bottom southwest corner of the Territory, and a small part in the Davenport province.
Elsewhere in Australia there is legislation to cover geothermal exploration and development, and all states have variously named legislation. The national legislation covering this area is the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The legislation here today mirrors that of the Mining Act and the Mine Management Act and was managed in a similar way to activities under those acts. Now that the legislation is here perhaps you may see some activity on the ground as the framework and structure for operations will be clear for industry and other interested stakeholders, such as land councils.
Having said that, I do not believe we should get too excited nor should this government try to kid people that geothermal energy is the way of the future in the Territory’s energy mix, because it is not -, at least not in the short term. In Australia it is relatively new technology and the activity is highly expensive, as has been said previously. By way of comparison, a 50 m to 100 m mineral exploration drill hole will cost between $50 000 to $100 000. A geothermal drill hole, which will need to be at least 3 km to 4 km in depth, will cost around $8m to $10m and take upwards of three months to drill. To get the flow of the energy and the water through the ground you are going to need two drill holes, so you are looking at a minimum of, say, $20m for two drill holes, and that is just the drilling; so you could have upwards of $15m to $20m. Even if there is energy and a source identified, there will need to be a customer right next door to the exploration and processing plant for the energy. The heat will not be able to be transported over hundreds of miles to a customer; it will need to be right next door to a mine or a large community to make it economically viable.
There are companies in Australia working in this field. I am interested to know what plans the government has to attract them to the Northern Territory, and what incentives the government has in mind, given its expensive nature and greenfields, and also given the current economic issues of the resource industry.
I would also be interested to know what work this government is doing with the other states and the Commonwealth government in regard to the geothermal industry development framework and the geothermal roadmap. Also, what work the government is planning to source research and development grants, and how companies wanting to come to the Territory will be encouraged to take up grant offers, and whether this government plans to develop a framework in the Territory to support this new industry.
Some of the challenges I believe this government, and governments across the country, face in regard to this new form of energy is the actual reporting of the resource and the reserves, given that it is new technology, not dissimilar to how they report the mineral side of the exploration industry and petroleum; also, challenges in regard to research and development. As I said, the research and information is patchy and it does tend to cluster around the hydrocarbon fields. What is the database? How is it going to be established in the Northern Territory in regard to collection of the information?
Of course, assuming we do get companies and they do have the funds to do the drilling and exploration work, how is the government going to support companies progressing towards the development and the technology required in power plants, given that there are issues with the power plants as we have seen only too clearly in South Australia recently?
One other way I believe this government could help in regard to this type of industry and other junior sides of the industry is for the minister and the government to lobby their federal counterparts in Canberra to set up a flow-through share scheme which could go some way towards securing the future health not only of mineral exploration but also geothermal exploration. I know the previous Coalition government in Canberra was not receptive to setting up this flow-through share scheme, despite the consistent and hard lobbying of industry. However, the Labor Party previously has committed to the implementation of a flow-through share scheme and, perhaps, it is timely for this Northern Territory Labor government to get on the blower to their mates in Canberra to see if we can have something happen.
I ask the minister to take this matter up with his federal colleague so we can get more activity into the Northern Territory and we can be ready and prepared for when the mineral global downturn does change and we get to be a buoyant industry again in the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister and the agency on the bill, and also in positioning the Territory with the rest of our global counterparts on the move forward to both renewable and alternative energy resources.
On a subject of such importance, let me place on the record the references that I used in the parliament to develop the supportive statement I make today. The reference has come from Catherine Brahic ‘Gives us clarity in climate targets’ in New Scientist, 21 March 2009, and Rachel Novak, ‘Geothermal explosion rocks green energy hopes’, also in the New Scientist Online. What I am talking about today is hot rocks and options for a carbon-free future.
The legislation we are considering today is fundamentally about facilitating a new option as we confront the stark challenges we face with global warming. It is not about picking winners; it is about creating certainty for a fledgling industry that has great potential in meeting global warming head-on. It is about giving us an option to utilise clean, green energy; it is not a solution in and of itself. As we approach the next round of international discussions on climate change in Copenhagen this December there is nothing to suggest the global threat of climate change is diminishing. Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, give us no comfort. In fact, things may be getting worse at a faster rate.
In March this year, a summit of 2500 climate scientists met in Copenhagen in preparation for December’s international convention, to look at the current situation and where we might be heading. Martin Parry, of the Grant and Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, was quoted in the New Scientist last month as saying:
- What is important is that the Copenhagen Climate Summit concluded that the IPCC conclusions hold and, if anything, the challenge is stronger.
Geothermal power is but one of the possibilities that presents itself to us, albeit one that has huge potential as sustainable energy with negligible carbon output. Its huge potential advantage is as a source of relatively inexpensive base load power, thus reducing our dependency on coal or gas, or our potential dependency on uranium.
While geothermal energy has been used one way or another for many thousands of years, its source as a producer of electricity is barely a century old. However, the kinds of geothermal resources largely derived from volcanic activity that have been exploited in this fashion are, effectively, not available in Australia. Apart from the potential resources from the Great Artesian Basin effectively used at a small power plant at Birdsville, the real future would seem to be using the resources of what has come to be known as hot rocks. Put simply, at depths of 3.5 km to 5 km, significant areas of the Australian continent contain high geothermal potential with temperatures of 250C and above. The rocks at this depth achieve this heat from either radioactive decay or magnetic activity. Technology developed in the US strongly suggests that this energy can be utilised by systems of governed wells, where water is pumped down one hole into these strata, and transferred through fractured or porous rock to another well which brings steam to the surface. That steam can then be utilised directly to power a turbine or, indirectly, environment systems through heat transfer to other working fluids that produce a turbine and power a turbine.
It sounds relatively straightforward, but it is not that simple. Locating appropriate drilling sites must be based on knowledge of relatively deep geological data which, in Australia, is still significantly incomplete. Drilling at such depths, again, is pushing the boundaries of technologies being adapted from the hydrocarbon extraction industry. It is high risk in terms of investing in exploration, and in terms of investments in drilling and extraction, and then power generation.
And this is where the legislation comes in. It gives companies operating in the Northern Territory certainty about the exploration and extraction regimes that they will be able to operate under. There are four major potential regions for geothermal power generation in the Territory. The largest stretches from around Tennant Creek, in my electorate of the Barkly, north through the Ashburton Province, the Dunmarra and McArthur Basins, through to the Arafura Basin in Arnhem Land. Other areas include a region south of the Davenport Ranges, the Amadeus Basin in the south-west of the Territory, and another region in the Simpson Desert. The information on this is largely drawn directly from oil and gas exploration drilling, and inferred from other sources. The legislation gives this potential industry the green light to move towards utilising hot rocks as a green energy.
Again, things are not as straightforward as they seem. The first hot rocks proof of concept plan, designed to generate 1 MW for the remote South Australian town of Innamincka, offers much promise, and is widely seen as a pilot for scaling plants up to a 500 MW operation. Its 4 km well into the Cooper Basin is the most ambitious project in Australia to date. However, only three days ago, Geodynamics, the Brisbane-based company trialling the site, reported a major breach of the well. Geodynamics holds the rights to a potential power supply of up to 10 GWh trapped in a 1000 km2 slab of hot granite deep under the town of Innamincka in South Australia. The cause of the breach is yet to be determined, but really illustrates the risks of this early stage of development of hot rocks geothermal energy production.
It is early days yet, however, the Henderson government is putting the Territory, through this legislation, in a position where investment, exploration and research can be encouraged. As I mentioned, geothermal energy is but one possibility, one option, in meeting the extreme challenges we face in combating climate change in this country and internationally.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very interested in this bill. I have been interested in geothermal and hot rock technology for quite some time. When I was first elected to the federal parliament I ended up on a number of House of Representative standing committees. One of those committees was the Science and Innovation Committee and another one was the Industry and Resources Committee which I served on with Martin Ferguson, the current federal Resources minister, with whom I had a good chat this morning about other issues. He was also very much across the geothermal issues that were being raised. We received many submissions and representations from the company that has been mentioned this morning, Geodynamics.
Geodynamics is a rather interesting company. They are very much, as the member for Barkly said, interested in the hot rock technology. This bill could have probably been better named to include the words ‘hot rock’; geothermal can take into account anything. I do not know of any geysers bubbling around the Territory or steam pouring out of the ground. That is not to say there isn’t any; maybe we have not discovered them. What we are talking about here is hot rock technology. The member for Barkly has done me a great service by mentioning that this morning. Geodynamics, as has been said, is operating out of Innamincka at the Cooper Basin. It is drilling for hot rocks somewhere between 3.5 km and 5 km below the surface to rocks that typically will range from somewhere between 200C and 250C.
Geodynamics, contrary to what the member for Nelson said, has received significant government support over a number of years, not just from the Australian government but from many governments around the world. The location was chosen from locations around the world. It might interest members to know that a joint venture and a group of scientists got together and searched the world to find the best possible location to run this hot rock technology pilot program. They settled on Innamincka in South Australia because that was, as far as they could see, the best possible location. Between all the interested parties they have managed to shake up around $US500m over the last 10 or so years, and that has been grants from governments, as I say, all around the world. The Australian government has stuck in a significant portion of those grants to enable the research to go ahead.
I am very interested to know, seeing that the Henderson government is so keen on this technology, what its contribution to that pilot project has been. How much money has the Northern Territory government put forward to prove this technology? The experiment has been plagued with problems all the way through. As the member for Barkly said, it entails drilling two holes, pumping water down one hole, it goes through fractures in the hot rocks and the like, and comes out the other end and it is connected in a circular pipe and you can keep churning it around and around and using a heat exchanger to take off electricity.
Originally, they had problems with the fracturing of the rock. They pumped cold water down one of the holes; the idea is that there are fractures and porous rock and cold water will further fracture the rock and eventually pop up out of the other hole. They had great problems doing that and, a couple of days ago, the most recent incident.
Under Australian law, as a listed company, you have to advise the Australian Stock Exchange of anything that may influence investors and the like, and Geodynamics issued an announcement to the ASX on 27 April, only a couple of days ago. I will read it just to put it on the Parliamentary Record. It is headed ‘ASX announcement, 27 April 2009’:
- Habanero 3 Well Incident - Update.
Geodynamics as operator of the Innamincka Joint Venture with Origin Energy provides the following update on the well incident experienced
at Habanero 3 well site located near Innamincka in remote parts of northern South Australia.
Water and steam are still flowing from Habanero 3.
the commissioning crew being progressively demobilised. The timing of recommencement of commissioning activities is currently uncertain.
The company will provide a further update in due course as more information becomes available.
And it says where to get further information and the like.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that document for the ease of Hansard.
Leave granted.
Mr TOLLNER: This technology is extremely unproven. The jury is out as to whether the technology will work. I hope, as I am sure all members of this place hope, that the technology can be proven because I believe it is a great opportunity for Australia. One of the problems with it, of course, is that geothermal resources do not necessarily occur next to major urban areas, and there is a cost in transmitting that electricity.
The member for Nelson also talked about the massive costs involved in drilling 3 km and 4 km deep wells. It is not cheap, but then again everything worth having comes at a price. I hope the technology works. The member for Nelson mentioned there has not been adequate support for geothermal technology in this country. Again, I would question the government as to what levels of support they have given Geodynamics by way of grants and government assistance to prove that technology. The member for Nelson made a case that there should be more funding put into technology such as geothermal technology as opposed to what is commonly known as clean coal technology. I believe this is a common misconception around the country.
The fact is the vast majority of the world’s electricity sources are fuelled by coal. Every eight months, China is replicating the total Australian electricity system in China. Basically, the equivalent of all our electricity generation is being replicated in China every eight months. The vast majority of that is in coal-fired power stations. Those coal-fired power stations have a life of up to 60 years. If the world wants to get serious and make deep cuts into carbon emissions, the way to tackle that is by developing clean coal technology. We can have as much renewable technology and nuclear technology as we want but, ultimately, those coal-fired power stations are going to keep churning out carbon dioxide for up to another 60 years, even if the world stopped building coal-fired power stations today. I put to the House that that is not going to happen. The demand for energy is too great for countries to simply stop building coal-fired power stations.
The reality is that unless we do something about the emissions from coal-fired power stations, we are not actually going to reduce emissions. We may well stabilise emissions by developing a whole range of different renewable technologies, embracing nuclear, and goodness knows what is over the horizon, but we are not going to cut emissions unless the extraordinary step is taken by governments around the world to close down coal-fired power stations. For a whole range of reasons, that is not going to happen.
Australia has a significant interest in the world coal market given the fact that Australia has somewhere around 600 years of coal resource left in the ground, mining at today’s rate. Therefore, it is in Australia’s, not just commercial interest, but also environmental interest that we do something in relation to the emissions stemming from coal-fired power stations. For that reason, both the previous federal government and the current federal government are wedded to the idea of creating a system which can clean the carbon dioxide out of the emissions from coal-fired power stations and dispose of them in some way or form.
Member for Nelson, that is why there is this large investment in clean coal technologies. That is why governments of both persuasions have sought to ensure that Australia does everything in its power to address the emissions that come from coal-fired power stations because, unless that can happen, we are not going to make the deep cuts into carbon emissions that stem from electricity generation.
This is all, in a lot of ways, pie-in-the-sky stuff; this geothermal technology. The technology has not been developed. Reading from the release that Geodynamics put out, it may well be some time before it is developed, it may well be a long way off. I wonder why, in the Northern Territory, we are pushing this bill through now. I listened to the comments from the member for Katherine who said the government is acting too slowly – a three year time frame. I am not opposed to this legislation; I believe we should put in place legislation that will allow all of this type of technology to occur – tidal power, more solar, more wind, and other renewables or low-carbon emission technologies that come about.
However, this one in particular - and I know, as the member for Katherine said, some members on the other side have an amazing ability to move quickly when they want to. What was the term you used – blue …?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Blue shifting.
Mr TOLLNER: Blue shifting, yes, the member for Johnston blue shifting. I think you mentioned Flash; someone referred to him as Flash. Well, I can understand that analogy. You think of the Queen song: ‘Flash, he is here to save every one of us. He is going to save the universe’. Good on you, member for Johnston, I hope you do.
It has been a slow road. I scratch my head and wonder at times why there is a push to get this legislation into the parliament at all, given the fact that the time lines in relation to this technology are not short at all. I hope and pray they become shorter. If the government is committed to this, I would love to see the government committed to funding the research that Geodynamics is doing. I put it to the minister that when he sums up he could inform the House how much contribution the government has made to the Geodynamics project, and how interested they are in that research. I think it goes hand-in-glove with this legislation. If you want to introduce the legislation, surely you must have an interest in how quickly the technology is determined.
Madam Speaker, I have grave fears that this legislation is nothing but window dressing. I have often said in this place, with this government you do not listen to what they say, you actually look at what they do. This bill, I believe, is an opportunity for the minister to walk out of this building today and do a little grandstanding, a little talk about how they are focused on reducing greenhouse emissions, how they are going to look after our environment, and a whole range of other things when, in reality, this is a nothing bill. There is no reason why, if hot rock farmers came knocking at the door, you could not push it through parliament in very quick time. I do not believe this has anything to do with actually farming hot rocks or using the hot rock resource; this is more about window dressing than anything else.
The fact is we do have huge renewable energy options in the Northern Territory. Very little research has gone into tidal power in recent years, and around the country and around the world a lot of research has been done on tidal power. The tidal power technology is constantly changing and it would be good to see the government putting some energy into looking at some of those technologies, as well as technologies in relation to solar.
As I said earlier in this speech, I was very fortunate to be a part of the Science and Innovation Standing Committee in the federal parliament; it was a fantastic committee to be involved with. We had players from all walks of life and in all different technological areas briefing us on a whole range of subjects. Some of those people who provided evidence to the committee came from the solar industry.
I think about the graphite heat storage battery - I am not sure whether members in this place have heard of that. The member for Nelson might well be interested in hearing about the graphite heat storage battery. It is solar technology which is not dependent, necessarily, on the sun shining constantly. The graphite battery will retain heat for a very long period of time. You may have cloudy days for a few days or even a week, and that battery will retain the heat. It works ideally in conjunction with solar technologies, a range of mirrors and that sort of thing, reflecting heat up into the battery. It holds a lot of promise, particularly when looking at some of the remote communities we have in the Territory and the abundance of sunlight they have in those places.
Similarly, wind technology. We have a fantastic company in the Territory called PowerCorp which supplies wind turbines around the world. At Mawson, in Antarctica, they supply something like 85% of the electricity to the Australian research station there. It is very competitive commercially, because of the high cost of transporting diesel from Australia to Antarctica. This little wind turbine comes into its own. There is a backup generator for times when is not blowing but, as I say, it supplies 85% of the electricity to that installation. I know PowerCorp has sold thousands of these to remote areas around the world. I am interested to know how many they have sold in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that it is not very many. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about PowerCorp and the Territory’s commitment to one of its own homegrown businesses which is a world leader in this particular field.
Opportunities abound in the Northern Territory for renewable energies. As the member for Nelson said, he is wedded to the idea of nuclear power and that is something that is not particularly foreign to me either. I am not averse to nuclear power provided it is done properly, the latest technology is used, and it is done in a highly regulated way taking into account all of the environmental impacts. Given the fact that Australia has somewhere around 40% of the world’s recoverable uranium resources, it beggars belief that we continue with a head-in-the-sand approach in relation to nuclear power.
I do not believe current circumstances would make the Northern Territory a good place to put a nuclear power station, the reason being is they typically produce somewhere between 1000 MW to 1500 MW. I know there is work being done in America to produce much smaller nuclear reactors, production plants that will produce somewhere around 250 MW. Maybe if that technology ever gets off the ground we may see a need or an opportunity to involve ourselves in nuclear power in the Territory.
Because of our small requirements for electricity, I believe our whole transmission system is somewhere around only 200 MW. But in other parts of Australia where energy demands are high, I cannot understand, particularly when they are talking about desalination plants as well, the simplest and most effective way of running desalination plants, I am informed, is with nuclear power. The cycles can almost be combined to the point where they are very efficient; but it is something that is off the radar as far as the current Australian government is concerned. I imagine most governments obsessed with populism will shy away from nuclear power, but at times we need to take a leadership role and explain to people just what it means.
I am concerned that this bill is nothing but window dressing. This is a way for the minister to run out these doors, call a media conference, tell them that the government is being proactive, that we have introduced geothermal legislation that will allow producers to set up in the Northern Territory. I imagine he will be a bit reluctant to tell the media that there are no producers currently knocking on our door, and that there is no real urgency in this. He will also be a bit reluctant to explain why it has taken them three years from when they first mentioned they were going to introduce the bill, to now; apart from the fact that they too recognise there is no great urgency for this legislation.
Having said that, we support this legislation. I hope and pray the technology becomes available very quickly and that we have businesses and companies who wish to utilise it come knocking at the minister’s door saying: ‘Come on minister, I am ready with core samples and all of that, have a look. Can we start mining these hot rocks and producing electricity?’ But, alas, the cynic in me tells me that is not going to happen anytime soon, and this is nothing but window dressing and a little fanfare for the minister and the Labor government to cover up for their appalling lack of action in other areas which have more possibilities and better opportunities for the Territory.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a delegation from the New South Wales parliament. My colleague, Presiding Officer, the Honourable Richard Torbay MP, the Independent member for Northern Tablelands in New South Wales and who, might I say, is on a margin of 82% - which is rather good; he is the Speaker of the New South Wales Assembly and is also the Chancellor of the University of New England. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
With the New South Wales delegation is Mr Russell Grove, Clerk of the New South Wales parliament and one of the longest-serving Clerks in Australia and, I know, a man of many secrets and stories, together with Mrs Margaret McDonald, the Executive Officer of the Speaker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome,
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Treasurer
Proposed Censure of Treasurer
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Acting Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and member for Karama be censured for lying to this House and lying to Territorians.
One of the greatest duties that we have in our political life is to be honest with the people we represent and, more to the point, honest with this House. What we have discovered from this government is that it has a predisposition, particularly this person, this Treasurer, a predisposition to use the truth in its loosest possible terms and when that fails, Madam Speaker, then the next option is a bald-faced lie.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have never lied. I have never lied in this House - never lied. I do not lie.
Mr ELFERINK: She has just done it again. That is why she is in this position.
Ms Lawrie: No, actually. People who know me know I am very honest, and very direct.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that is why she is in the position that she is in now. ‘Oh, I never lied’. Another lie. This just goes on and on. One lie begets another lie begets another lie, and all we have heard from this minister is lie after lie.
I remember question one which was put to her about Bellamack and turning off blocks to Bellamack. I have a clear recollection that in the election campaign, immediately prior to Territorians going to the vote, she said publicly that blocks in Bellamack would be turned off in early 2009. There is no chance that she is going to be turning off blocks in early 2009. I can tell you, if they manage to turn off blocks in 2009, it will be nothing shy of a miracle. But that is not the point. The point is she chose to say early 2009 simply because, as far as she was concerned, it was convenient to convince the people of the Northern Territory that she was going to be able to achieve this promise, despite the fact that she must have known she was telling lies to the people of the Territory.
It was immediately after that election campaign that she changed that language. She changed the language to: ‘Oh, 2009’. And this minister changes her position by increments, but she knows when she is making those utterances in the first instance that she is lying to Territorians and she does not care, because it is power at any price. Anyone who is familiar with the book by Frank Hardy, Power Without Glory, would be familiar with what is going on in this House.
The process of turning off Bellamack has been one deception after another and, of course, the Leader of Government Business was very twitchy about the use of the word ‘deception’; the Leader of Government Business is twitchy at any word at all that is critical of this government, particularly this particular Treasurer. This Treasurer simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and it even impacts on this House. I will digress briefly to demonstrate how it occurs.
I am going to go through the history of the Legionella issue in this House In October 2007, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure contract for Legionella testing in Northern Territory government buildings in Darwin and Alice Springs was awarded for 12 months at the price of $78 702 …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have not received the motion yet, and I think that is crucial. I am not sure whether the motion mentions Legionella, and I am not sure whether …
Mr Elferink: No, it does not.
Dr BURNS: … and I am not sure how Legionella crept into this particular debate. It is a matter of relevance, Madam Speaker
Mr Elferink: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, have you given a signed copy? Yes, you have. I am looking forward to it.
Mr ELFERINK: Basically, all it says is that she is a liar, and that means I get as much room as I need to call her that and show examples of it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: It does not relate to a specific incident. We can cover …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Whilst this is a censure motion your comments must directly relate to what is in the actual motion. I remind you that all comments must be directed through the Chair and not across the Chamber. Member for Port Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue with the Legionella comments because the motion that you now have before you refers to the lies told by the minister.
I can well understand why the Leader of Government Business wants to interrupt me on these issues, but the fact is that we do not have enough questions asked in Question Time to deal with all the issues we have to deal with. A lie by omission is often as bad, in fact is often worse, than outright lying in its own right.
Getting back to it; the contract was awarded by DPI.
Between June and December 2008, test reports from the testing company showed results of testing conducted
on the water cooling towers in this building;
17 February 2009, Parliament House lost water supply in a cooling tower and an air conditioner shut down.
Parliament House staff took the opportunity to look inside the tower as part of their asset management strategy.
They noticed water flowing over the floor of the tower and no chemical dosing system working. Staff then sought
independent advice.
18 February 2009, Parliament House requested, for the preceding six months, the results which were not
undertaken by a registered microbiology laboratory, and requested DPI for the real reports. Dates of testing were
checked with Security and showed that no one from the contracted company had entered the site during those periods.
19 February 2009, DPI contacted the contractor to explain.
20 February 2009, interim results from an independent test showed very high readings and advised to undergo
decontamination work immediately - that is very high readings of Legionella. Parliament House contacted DPI
to express their dissatisfaction with the contractor;
20 February 2009, the contractor attended to clean the towers and connect a chemical system;
24 February 2009, an independent sampling was taken from the cooling towers;
25 February 2009, Parliament House received microbiological analysis and, Madam Speaker, you were advised at that time;
27 February 2009, Parliament House staff members identified that that person was under instructions not to give out any
information to anyone. The less that is known is the better, it would appear.
What it means is that DPI was in charge of keeping the Legionella issues in this building, was charged with keeping an eye on the air-conditioning systems, which they contracted out. DPI must have known, as a result of the Legionella found in this building, that there was a very high count of Legionella in the air conditioners in this building.
Did the Treasurer and the minister responsible for DPI warn people in this building? No. Why would she not do that? Because she did not want to have to deal with another scandal. She has faced scandal after scandal after scandal. This is the depth to which this Treasurer and minister will dive to avoid her responsibility to protect the people who work in this building - including members and staff of this building. I can tell you now that this is more than despicable conduct by the minister herself. That is the sort of attitude that we are seeing from this minister. Why did she want to avoid it? Because she wanted to avoid another scandal. She is already under the pump over the Bellamack situation and the fact that it is dragging out and dragging out. So, she has this other problem and does not want to deal with it.
However, there is also another issue percolating in the background; that is, the issue of what is now being dubbed ‘chook gate’. This comes down to a habit that we have all too often seen in this building from this government; that is, the habit of when under pressure, when caught out lying, they will immediately, as a minister of this government, hang a public servant out to dry. There are two …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I put a question to you in the last sittings and I asked you whether you were involved with interfering in a court case. Answer? ‘Madam Speaker, no’. She went on to say: ‘Following my legal advice I decided to make no direction to my department regarding this case’. Juxtapose that with an e-mail from Richard Hancock that said: ‘The minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’. Those two statements cannot be in any way reconciled - in any way reconciled - unless one of the two people who uttered those statements were lying.
What evidence do we have to demonstrate it was, in this case, the minister who was lying and not the departmental CEO? I point to a little history. We have seen several ministers stand up in this place, not least of which was the former Minister for Health who has seen fit to blame public servants repeatedly for the failings in the department he formerly had carriage of. On each instance, he said: ‘I was misled. I was not informed’. How many public servants were sacked? None. Do you know why that is? These public servants are not sacked because they are faithful and loyal public servants who do their job. I can tell you, if I was being lied to by my CEO, I would fire them. However, is Mr Hancock fired? No, he is not, because I believe him to be a loyal and faithful CEO. ‘The minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’. Is he still employed as the CEO of the department? My word he is, because this government knows full well the size of the unfair dismissal case and breach of contract case that would be coming their way if they actually did what logic dictates.
The only reason he is still in that job is that when he says: ‘the minister has verbally instructed me to cease the prosecution action’, that statement is true. He was, of course, somewhat nervous about this instruction. He prepared a letter for the signature of the minister, and this letter went to the minister; the text of this letter was an instruction, and that instruction was: to please instruct me to fulfil what you told me to do verbally. The Treasurer said: ‘No, I am not going to write that out. I am not going to sign that.’ It was after he took that action that he then put out that e-mail. Why would that CEO make that decision? For a very simple reason: he knows this government has form for hanging public servants out to dry when those ministers get caught in their own webs of deception.
So, he thinks to himself: my goodness gracious me, what am I going to do? This, by the way, is speculation on my part, but I think it is well founded speculation. He then writes an e-mail and circulates it widely, I suspect, to as many people as he can reasonably justify sending it to. He has gone into what is colloquially known in the public service as CYA mode - cover your backside mode. Why would he do that? Because he knows that despite the fact that he has acted as a faithful and loyal public servant, without fear or favour, he is going to be the man who is going to cop it in the neck. And, sure as eggs, the question gets asked in parliament, up stands the minister and says: ‘I decided to make no direction to my department regarding this case’. That was a lie and misleading of this House - a clear attempt to foist responsibility off her own shoulders.
The fact is, if what she said was true, she would have fired Mr Hancock and not put up with the fact that Mr Hancock had verballed her; but Mr Hancock had not. The only thing that occurred was that Mr Hancock realised he needed to cover his position, and did so in a smart way. However, what is clear from that is that he was instructed. The minister likes to refer to some notes and say: ‘Oh look, I will walk in there and I would be willing to exert my powers if you do not do what you are told’.
Ms Lawrie: I did not have to.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, why did you not? The fact is you actually did exert your powers. You did the exact thing of holding a gun to his head and saying: ‘If you do not do what I say I am going to pull the trigger anyway’.
Dr BURNS: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. If you would not mind, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. She put a gun to her CEO’s head and said: ‘If you do not do what I am telling you to do, I am going to pull the trigger anyway’. That is a form of coercion. It is an instruction by that or any other means - a rose is a rose. The fact is that this minister fibbed to this parliament, lied to this parliament and, as a consequence of lying to this parliament, she then had to find some nice little weasel words to try to squeak her way through this particular issue and manoeuvre herself in such a way that she had a justifiable and defendable position.
Well, Madam Speaker, it does not wash out there. People simply do not believe it. People talk to me about these issues. They have mentioned this inconsistency between departmental CEO and the minister, and guess what, Madam Speaker? They do not believe her either. They simply do not believe the Treasurer. They see her lips moving and they are thinking to themselves: ‘That cannot be true, can it?’
We also have this little slippery exercise we have seen the minister go through as the Treasurer: the process of making public announcements about the position of the budget. This is also a profound area of irresponsibility on the part of this Treasurer. For the first time today I actually heard her make a little disclaimer at the end of one of her comments. The little disclaimer was this: ‘Oh, and by the way, it might get worse still’, after relying on some numbers that Treasury provided. The important part about that little disclaimer at the end of the answer was she now knows, or has come to understand, she is actually in charge of Treasury. Whilst Treasury is full of very professional people who carefully monitor information as it comes to hand, the fact is the pronouncements she makes, not Treasury staff, but this minister makes, are the pronouncements upon which people make judgments - judgments which involve tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment. That is how seriously people should take what Treasurers say.
How is it conceivably possible that a minister can be advised in advance by the federal government of a deteriorating situation, and slavishly adhere to numbers she must know are wrong? That is why I put question three into this pack, because I fully expected when I asked her about the budget deficit that she would say: ‘Yes, it is the global financial crisis, and it is a moving feast’. The fact is that the feast was moving before you were making some of your pronouncements and that is when you slip away from gloss and you move into the area of deception and lies.
Predictably, when I asked the question, I said: ‘Yes, I knew you were going to blame the global financial crisis’. The Commonwealth’s mid-year report was released on 5 November 2008 - 20 days before the Treasurer claimed there was going to be a surplus in the 2009-10 budget. You cannot tell me, and I would not believe the assertion the Treasurer is making, that having been informed for 20 days that the situation was deteriorating to the point where there was going to be a massive drop in the financial position of the Northern Territory, that you could still assert figures from earlier paperwork.
Why would this be? Because the minister is so locked into a position of spinning and presenting for presentation purposes and all those types of things she has to do - the position of the Northern Territory as the place to come to - she was so busy doing all that, she forgot to tell the truth. The truth was that 20 days earlier, before she made those statements, the federal Treasurer had detailed the complete collapse of federal revenues in the 2009-10 financial year, and that collapse made a large deficit in the Territory inevitable.
The Treasurer would have been well aware of what is in the 2009 CGC update, and that process of deception is still continuing today. I will return to that particular issue in the next day or so. But the lies which are coming out from this Treasurer in terms of dressing up the economy of the Northern Territory for political gain only, is just shocking.
In - was it October 2008? - this Treasurer was producing a mid-year report saying that we would not be in deficit in 2009-10 – in 2008. That was well after the global financial crisis was known about and was being tracked by her Treasury as well as other Treasuries around the nation and around the world. And those Treasuries talk to each other - we know that from intergovernmental agreements. Despite that, she consistently continued to stick to that assertion until such time, in spite of the lies and deceptions in relation to the fiscal position of the Northern Territory, she finally admitted that we were heading for a whopper of a problem in 2009-10. How did she tell Territorians? She buried the fact near the bottom of the media release she put out.
Heading to a budget deficit of $150m which, I believe is now bordering on the wildly ambitious, she has simply been taking a position of deception when dealing with these particular issues, and she continues to take a position of deception when dealing with these particular issues.
The fact is she is now being caught red-handed. And she is quite right in one respect. I heard her say: ‘What is happening here today is all a plan to demonstrate I am deceptive and that is going to be your vehicle to run down the budget’. Essentially, that is actually correct - she is deceptive and Territorians need to know that she is deceptive because she is going to bring down a budget next week. And, if it is anything like previous budgets it is almost going to be an unreliable document in terms of some of the things which are contained in it.
The state of the mid-year report and now are miles apart, and it is not because they did not know it was coming. She knew it was coming. She even knows more pain is coming but she is still not factoring those things into the paperwork she is issuing in her name. She has just said she knows worse times are coming. So if she knows that it is bad, and worse is coming, why is that not being factored into the budget? The reason is because she has a propensity not to tell the truth when it comes to these particular issues.
This Treasurer and this minister for Planning has nothing other than deceit as a vehicle for communicating with Territorians. She chose to do it over Bellamack, and continues to choose to do it over Bellamack. She chose to do it over budget statements and budget documents, and continues to do it over budget statements and budget documents. She chose to do it over ‘chook gate’, where she was caught with her hand in the till, so to speak, and …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong! Wrong! And that is sick and that is misleading parliament
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you are welcome to bring on a motion. Come on.
Ms Lawrie: You think you can just lie on the record.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion is about her telling lies. I strenuously object to her use of that word.
Ms Lawrie: Well, you stop it. You stop lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. Minister, if you would withdraw those comments. Member for Port Darwin, nothing in this motion refers to putting a hand in the till, which is quite a different allegation. I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw ‘hand in the till’. She was caught red-handed …
Ms Lawrie: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … and she was caught red-handed about being deceptive, and that is just her form; that is the way she operates, sadly. She has been able to get away with it for a little while but, the fact is, the chickens - no pun intended - are coming home to roost.
Madam Speaker, the position of this minister has been to use deception as her vehicle of communication. As I said at the outset of my comments today, this minister has been caught lying in relation to Bellamack, about our budgetary position, about her role in the ‘chook gate’ affair, and there are other issues that still have to come out of ‘chook gate’, about the connections between Red Rooster and who owns it, and the Labor Party. All those things are still to wash out of this whole process.
This is the person who is in charge of our budget. A budget of some $4bn if you include the NPs, and this person cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed.
I often wonder to myself when I hear the level of bitterness and antipathy between herself and the former member for Barkly on this and other issues, how the member for Barkly, a fellow of esteem and high integrity, would be moved to make such observations about this Treasurer. I suspect that the relationship she managed with him, personally, was not entirely unlike the relationship she manages with the rest of the Territory community. That animosity between those two is only demonstrative of this particular minister’s attitude towards the truth.
To deny that she read Elliot McAdam’s e-mail is just incomprehensible; it cannot be true. ‘Oh, he is a fool; I do not want to talk to him. I am not going to read his e-mails’. That is just not believable. To say: ‘I was not involved in a paper trail, I did not read his e-mail’, is just a lie. There is no other word. I know the Leader of Government Business is all bent out of shape about using the word ‘deception’, but there is no other word. I checked my thesaurus before I came for words that come close, other than ‘deception’ and ‘lies’, to deal with the conduct of this particular Treasurer and minister.
I just cannot comprehend how members opposite can continue, in the face of overwhelming and damning evidence, to sit beside her and support her in continuing this behaviour because eventually the radioactivity this particular minister is emanating into the public arena will cause an anaemic drain on her colleagues. Whilst they continue to cuddle up to her radioactive self, the results will mean they will also become radioactive in the eyes of the voting public.
The lies that have been told by this minister are clearly evidenced by paper trails, by e-mails in which CEOs – fine, upstanding, reputable public servants - say to their colleagues, and whoever else received them, that they had been verbally instructed. She chose to stand up in this House and tell Territorians a lie.
Madam Speaker, that alone should condemn her, let alone all the other lies she has told and continues to perpetrate on the people of Northern Territory and this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I know that the stated ambition of the Country Liberal Party is to attack individually your good self and ministers of this government - ruthlessly attack, callously attack - in the hope that one of us will weaken under the unprecedented nasty and personal nature of the attacks which we have been enduring since the 2008 elections, hoping one of us will just say: ‘Enough is enough. I love my job, I love doing my job but, really, it is beyond the pale’. This member is just going to keep on copping the attacks from the opposition because I put my hand up to enter parliament and parliamentary public life knowing just how nasty and how wrong it gets.
I saw attack after attack on my mother in the parliament when she was one of two Independents, who were the only members of opposition when it was a 19-member parliament, and all the others were CLP and they were arrogant, but they were particularly bullying towards her as a woman. I have noticed a trend with the latest crop here and the way they behave towards women parliamentarians, particularly.
I know that holding the positions I hold in this government makes me a target for them. I am a very big, walking, moving, everyday target for the opposition. Why? I am the Deputy Chief Minister: ‘Go after the Deputy Chief Minister, try to bring her down, try to discredit the government’. I am also the Treasurer: ‘Go after the Treasurer, try to bring her down, and try to discredit this government’, particularly discredit this government where it is very strong and that is in the area of economic delivery for a prosperous Territory. So it is particularly important to go after the Treasurer of this particular government.
I am also the Minister for Planning and Lands and the Minister for Infrastructure. With those portfolios, when you know them well, you know there are 101 things everyday in the portfolios that are difficult, that are challenging, particularly in the area of Planning. One person will like a planning proposal; another person will hate the planning proposal. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t everyday in the portfolios of Planning and Lands and Infrastructure.
That being said, I like the portfolios that I carry for this government, just as I have loved every portfolio I have carried for this government. Why? Because I entered this parliament in 2001 wanting to make a difference for Territorians, and wanting to serve Territorians because it was bred into me. I resisted it most of my life, but it was bred into me; it was bred into care about individual Territorians, their lives, their struggles, how you could improve their lives, but also, collectively, the community and groups of the Territory, whether they are in urban areas, regional areas, or remote areas of the Territory. You cannot get away from the way you were raised, and that was the way I was raised.
The other thing that I find particularly offensive about this today is that it is simply about lying; it does not go to particular issues which they may have a view about, what they think I did was right or wrong and how I went about it. It is simply around me lying to this House and lying to Territorians. It is as broad as that. That is absurd; it simply goes to character and character only. So in debating this, I have to debate my own character. Now, we are not all necessarily good at holding the mirror up to oneself and asking: ‘What is at the core of you as a person? What is your character?’ It harps back to after I was elected - and I know what politics is like - and I kept thinking: why would I do that to myself when I saw what my mother had to put up with? Regardless, I could not resist the urge to work for Territorians, to make this a better place to live and to really respond to the struggles of the people who struggle the most and change their lives in a better way, in any way I possibly could.
When I did get into parliament, I remember having a conversation with my now ex-husband. I was hanging out the clothes at about 11.30 at night, and I said to him: ‘Why on earth am I doing this? It is horrible, it is frustrating. Will I be able to achieve change and improvement in people’s lives? He said: ‘At the end of the day, whenever you do leave parliament, as long as you leave with your integrity intact then you have done the right thing’. I have never forgotten that. They were very wise words and very appropriate words.
I was raised by a woman of enormous integrity, known for her integrity, still known for her integrity right throughout the Territory. I have the pleasure now of being Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, and whilst it is a new portfolio area for me and I am still learning it, and will continue to learn it everyday I hold it, I do not doubt I was very strongly influenced as a child by the late Dick Ward. I sat by him as he underwent dialysis at home in Rapid Creek, and he talked to me about justice and about how to treat people.
So, with very strong influences in my life, including the late Barbara James, fundamentally at the core of me is this inability to just bald-faced lie. I cannot do it; I am actually hopeless at it.
Obviously, in circumstances in your life you have to find situations where you know to tell someone something outright, and here I am talking about personal circumstances, not professional circumstances. I will not lie in professional circumstances. But, in personal circumstances you do not want to hurt someone personally over something you know is happening to them in their life, for example, if their boyfriend is playing up on them, that sort of thing, so you tell them what are half truths, hints at what is occurring without being the one who has to pass on the bad message. That is personal life, not professional. Professionally, from the day I started work, I pursued my chosen careers with integrity. You cannot take your breeding out of you.
I also have a culture. Everyone has their own particular culture. I happen to be Jewish and in my culture we happen to be argumentative, we happen to be characters, we happen to be fairly colourful. We have an interest in finances so the Treasury portfolio is not such a strange one for me. However, I balance the challenging aspects of my Judaism culturally in me with a religion I learned from my mother and I have pursued all of my life, from about the age of six, which is Buddhism. The fundamental tenets of that is honesty and going about what you do in a very honest way. I cannot take those elements out of me and nor will I, not for any job, not for any purpose, not for any time; to the core of me, that is me.
I have to say that it gets me into trouble often, particularly professionally. I can be at a meeting with very influential and important business people, but I will to their face, eyeball them and tell them honestly why what they are proposing will not wash. I am known out there, I have a reputation out there, for being tough, sometimes uncompromising but, above all, they know I am forthright. They know when they walk in the door they will get an honest response from me about where the government is at and what the read is. That is what I do - every single day.
This particular political stunt by the opposition, I read it for what it is: I know it is yet another attack. I know the timing of it. I called it in Question Time before they did it. Why? I have known it has been coming for days. I have been around politics since I was five. Do not treat me like the babe in the woods. Do not underestimate that aspect.
I see it for what it is. They censured the previous Treasurer of a Labor government prior to handing down the budget. They try to do that because they have to destroy the credibility of the individual, who is the Treasurer, because they are doing the most important task you can do each year in the government - hand down the budget. They like to present me as someone who somehow plays with the figures.
Well I do not, and I never would. To me that is absolutely abhorrent. To me that is also an insult to the fine staff of Treasury who I listen to and learn from; listen to very closely and learn from every single day I am the Treasurer. I will continue to learn from them every single day I remain the Treasurer of the Territory. I hope I remain the Territory Treasurer for a good length of time, because I can see and can chart the path. I am strong enough to ensure discipline in my own team and we will make the tough decisions and follow through the tough decisions. Why? For the betterment of the Territory and the best outcomes for Territorians. Tough decisions protect Territorians now and lay the foundations for the strength of their future as well. I am not going anywhere. I was born here, I was raised here, this is my country; I will die here.
The aspersions and the flights of fancy cast by the member for Port Darwin are wrong. Everything he said in that debate was wrong. It was offensive and parts of it were abhorrent to me. Fundamentally, in everything he said, in every aspersion he made, he was wrong.
I tend not to play the petty politics they play because I do not like it. I do not agree with it. I tend to get on with the job and concentrate on getting the job done because there is plenty to get done in a developing jurisdiction like the Territory.
In the area of the November figures which are used in the mid-year report, on page 8 it states that we took these figures from the Commonwealth’s mid-year report – the MYEFO figures. We actually explain in the mid-year report where those figures came from, and yet he likes to present it as if we were ignoring the latest figures. Well, that is wrong. The mid-year report explained where the figures came from.
We keep revising our figures downwards and I have said we will keep revising our figures downwards because the Commonwealth continues to revise the GST revenue downwards. It is not of our making. I wish I was the Treasurer in the good times not the tough times, but I am the Treasurer in the tough times, and I will be tough and I will make the tough decisions to protect the Territory, to protect Territorians and to protect jobs. Every state and territory Treasurer, together with the federal Treasurer, has been revising their estimates downwards. I have publicly announced each time I have received the latest revised figures. I have not delayed and, in the pack of Treasurers I have tended to be the first, second or third out the door with those revisions. I have not been at the back of the pack; I have been up the front of the pack getting out there as soon as possible.
I believe I was the first to say ‘deficit’. No one wanted to, no Treasurer wanted to, but I went out at the front of the pack and said we will have to go into deficit because we want to protect Territory jobs, and these GST revisions are driving us into deficit. It is no easy task, I have to say, when we have had six surpluses in a row under Labor Treasurers.
In terms of Legionella, the member for Port Darwin is clearly and wilfully misinterpreting the issue. The facts are that the Parliament House water supply was interrupted on 18 February 2009 and the cooling towers were emptied. I am advised that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure understands the cooling towers were filled with town water and agitation of the biofilm, that is the sludge, prior to sampling may have led – may - have led to higher than normal readings. Immediate cleaning and decontamination was implemented.
Testing through an approved laboratory has been ongoing at regular periods as defined in Australian Standards to ensure bacteria is at an acceptable standard, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Construction Division will continue to monitor the water quality at a higher frequency than that required by the Australian Standards to ensure the situation remains under control.
Madam Speaker, there was an accusation of lying by omission. I was sitting here listening to him flinging around the issue of Legionella and I thought: ‘I have not made any comments about Legionella. Why would I have been accused of lying when I actually have not said anything about Legionella?’ I have been monitoring …
Mr Mills: That is the point.
Ms LAWRIE: I have been monitoring the situation. I have been getting regular updates.
Mr Mills. You did not say a thing, and you hid it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I have been getting regular updates and briefings from my department, quite appropriately, but, Madam Speaker, I know you as the person responsible for Parliament House and the building, have been very open and frank. I know you wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mills, on 24 April in regard to the Legionella issue. I table that letter. This lying by omission is completely absurd. You, quite appropriately, as the Speaker of the Assembly had carriage of the matter and I know that all my department officials have been having meetings; I have been monitoring it as the minister for DPI, who has the Construction Division sitting underneath me.
In terms of Red Rooster, the first point I want to make is that it was the Department of Planning and Infrastructure which withdrew the Red Rooster prosecution after I raised very serious and legitimate concerns about the fairness of continuing a prosecution when the individual involved had subsequently obtained an occupancy permit, and when there were others who had not.
The opposition’s feigned outrage would be more convincing if one of its own members, the member for Katherine, had not already pointed out in a letter to the former Attorney-General the basic issue of fairness involved here and, as the member for Katherine implored the government to cease this prosecution, at least he seems to understand the need to take a wider perspective and do everything possible to help building owners in our regions comply with certification.
It seemed to be easier instead for the opposition to try to snare a cheap headline, and they seem to have quite a low opinion of our commercial construction industry and appear willing to trample all over the professionalism of Territory certifiers for the chance of a headline.
The government will act quickly on any building assessed as unsafe. It is not a safety issue even though they have been scaremongering and trying to say it is. The government is genuinely working to improve certification processes and raise certification rates. They do not like being reminded that there is failure in the system which dates back to 1993 when the certification industry was privatised. Territory certifiers are hard-working and professional. They have been busy trying to service our regional areas in strong economic times and when there has been a boom in our urban centres, particularly Darwin and Palmerston.
I went at length through the issue of what we are going to do during Question Time – and they kept interjecting - putting monitoring in place is about being fair and reasonable; working collaboratively with building owners and the certifiers and facilitating the certification outcomes we are seeking; bringing in an independent team from Queensland to put a fresh set of eyes across what we do and how we do it here in the Territory; putting together a government task force to ensure all government compliance occurs; providing subsidies for certifiers to travel to the regional areas to pursue compliance and, importantly for the industry, providing a cadetship program to build the Territory’s own skills base.
What we see is the government and I, as minister, going through the issues, pursuing the issues and saying: ‘How do we best approach all this?’ We want to work with the industry; we are not going to lock horns with the industry. I know the CLP tried to set this up as something we were going to overreact on and run around prosecuting everyone. But we did not quite play into their little game plan and it has upset them, which is why they cannot seem to let it go. They tried to set it up so we would race off into prosecutions willy-nilly and pick on Territory small- and medium-sized business enterprises and the strong, nasty arm of government would come crashing down on people’s heads.
It did not happen like that because I take a fair and reasonable approach to the way I oversight the work of my department. It is a test when issues come across my desk with a whole lot of challenges in them: what is fair and what is reasonable in the approach?
Regarding the issue of I must be lying because in the e-mail my CEO, Richard Hancock, sent around he said I had instructed the prosecution to cease and, therefore, I must be lying to saying that I did not. It is as clear and simple as this: I was willing to instruct, I made that clear; I was willing to direct if I had to. I eyeballed my team and I said: ‘If I have to, I will. I do not believe I should have to. If the senior members of administration in government have a look at this issue they will see the unfairness of the situation which has emerged, that is, one being pursued who is compliant in a prosecution, while there are others non-compliant’.
The minutes reflect that I said I was willing to. If Richard took away the impression that I had absolutely instructed, I do not have an issue with that. Impression or no impression, I do not have an issue with that, which is why I did not sack him, as the member for Port Darwin said he would sack a CEO if they did that wilfully. That is a wrong approach. If he saw my willingness to instruct as instruct, I do not have an issue with that.
What is the outcome I was seeking? The outcome I was seeking was that one person was not prosecuted when others were non-compliant. What is the outcome I was seeking? That we seek compliance in the Territory; that is the goal; that is the outcome. What is the pathway and how to do it has been something I have been working on with my senior management at DPI. I genuinely believe we have come up with a good response regarding the Queensland review team, the cadet programs, the subsidies for certifiers, getting certifiers to work on government certification, and putting together the task force between the Department of Business and Employment and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
It is not going to be without costs to government. There are resource issues contained within the Queensland team report and there will be resource issues contained with certification compliance. There are resource issues in subsidising certifiers to go out. But is it the right thing to do to get buildings compliant? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to do to look at changing legislation to improve the compliance system? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to do to consult with industry regarding their views? Absolutely, it is the right thing to do.
I did not walk into the little trap the CLP laid regarding building certification. The trap and snare did not bite me because I saw it coming; I saw what they were up to. They wanted us to come down and smash and crash and bash our way through hard-working, small business people and hard-working business owners of the Territory. Well, we were not doing that. That is no good end.
We had a debate in this parliament about the difference between litigation and mediation. I am a fan of mediation - let us sit down and try to work it out in a fair and reasonable way. Nothing is served by ridiculous prosecutions if they can be avoided. However, if prosecution has to occur, then, it has to occur. Bearing in mind I was not the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General at the time these decisions were made, even though the member for Port Darwin tried to present - mislead - that I was. He misleads so regularly that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled yourself that the term ‘misleading’ must be done by substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, I withdraw.
Mr Elferink: I am not the subject of a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has withdrawn.
Ms LAWRIE: He has so many flights of fancy all the time that people are finding it really difficult to believe anything he says now. People are really struggling with it, because he runs off into flights of fancy all the time. I sit here and think: ‘Here is the evidence. No, he is wrong about that’. Then the next flight of fancy comes my way and I respond: ‘Well, here is the evidence, here is the response to that’, and the next flight of fancy comes my way.
I counted three different tacks the member for Port Darwin took over the building certification issue. One attack was: I was the Attorney-General and I interfered and abused my powers to stop the prosecution. That was wrong. No, I was not the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. Yes, I was working well within my powers as minister. Ken Parish independently came on radio and said not only did I do the right thing legally and morally, but politically it was the right thing to do.
So the tack switched to cover-up - I was just trying to cover it all up. I was not trying to cover it all up because I had asked for an audit of buildings and I was saying to the media, which was running with this publicly, as they should, yes, I will give you the audit details - no cover up there. I put an independent Queensland team in - no cover up there. So the cover-up conspiracy, fantasy thing was wrong.
The next one was: there was something dastardly going on - I was being levered and manipulated and corruptly working with the former member for Barkly. Well, wrong, simply wrong and I scotched that very easily, very quickly, because it was wrong.
So the three different tacks and flights of fancy were all proven to be absolutely wrong in the area of building certification. What was being done at the time, the action, was carefully and considerately working through the issue, which is the way I approach my work.
In terms of Bellamack, the hardest thing in construction, particularly in turning off massive construction projects like a subdivision, is hitting the time lines. They should have used examples of me publicly talking about dates for Berrimah Farm because they are even worse - much worse - than Bellamack in when we are finally going to achieve turn-off at Berrimah Farm. Those dates have blown way out.
With Bellamack we are on a tight time line, but we hitting the key markers that we need to hit in delivering land in 2009. Anyone who is involved in negotiations with a multimillion dollar project would know that there are teams of lawyers involved, the paperwork goes to and from, and ministers have to be absolutely nowhere near it. We are the worst people to have anywhere near something as sensitive and delicate as that. You get a good team of negotiators and you let them do their job. You keep prompting them, you getting briefings and you keep up-to-date on it. I get briefed on Bellamack several times a week, almost on a daily basis, prompting and nudging the negotiating team to get the result. And it is extremely close - documents being exchanged by lawyers - extremely close.
Meanwhile, running in parallel to those negotiations to fast-track it, and this is where the fast-tracking comes in, which is a big punt to take to fast-track it, so without the final signature we are running the design and planning processes in parallel. The designs are done; planning processes have Stage 1 approval from the Development Consent Authority. This is all designed to create that fast-track turn-off of lots because if we waited for final signatures on final documents you would then be starting your design, you would then be starting your planning processes, and you would then be delaying the project. So we are taking a punt and running those processes in parallel to fast-track it. The public needs more land turned off in the Territory and that is why we are also running Johnston at the same time, in terms of design processes, and that is proceeding very well.
I am also negotiating with a whole range of people across the Territory in terms of land subdivisions. I believe it is better for us to have more subdivisions out there and competition in the marketplace than be focusing on just one, which is Bellamack. So there is a whole lot of other work I am doing with other bodies in negotiating major subdivisions.
Madam Speaker, I answered the issues on Bellamack publicly, articulating them clearly; answered the issues on Legionella; and answered the issues on the revisions in terms of the GST and the budget, and it is going to be a tough budget to hand down next week. It is not going to be an easy day at all because it is a tough economic time in the nation and, whilst we are tracking better than most, it is the toughest budget to frame in the history of the Territory since self-government …
Ms Purick: Squandered all the money.
Ms LAWRIE: … when you have GST revenues dropping away.
I will pick up on the ridiculous interjection from the member for Goyder. We have received just above the guaranteed minimum amount we would have received in payments from the Commonwealth if the GST had not been in place. We have received just above the guaranteed minimum amount. What we have done in that time is delivered six surpluses in a row to drive down the debt that we inherited from the CLP. We have also delivered record budgets, record additional spending in the critical areas that needed it: health, education, law and order, and infrastructure. We have spent more than $1.8bn in GST in the expenditure increases we have had across all those key areas. Just this year alone 2008-09, we have an $870m infrastructure program …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … $1.8bn in additional GST revenue. We have spent more than that in increasing the health budget, increasing the education budget, increasing the police budget, putting services in the bush for the first time, where they failed before. Just in the child protection budget alone, more than a threefold increase from $8m to $60m when I was minister at the time.
This is nothing but a political stunt, one that I was able to call halfway through. They like to censure the Treasurer of a Labor government before a budget - that is what this is about. I am not lying to Territorians. I would not do this job if I had to lie to Territorians. I am not ever going to lie to this parliament because I respect this parliament. I have grown up knowing the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Territory; I will never lie to this parliament.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, that was the most unbounded assortment of gratuitous untruths I have ever heard. This minister has an appalling track record when it comes to managing the finances and the planning and infrastructure development of the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, has spoken about the suburb, or would-be suburb, of Bellamack or Bellamite - it was Bellamidgy - being on the market early this year. We know that the tender documents have not been signed because the unsuccessful tenderers have not been debriefed yet. We know that the lots have not been surveyed which means those parcels of land are unlikely to be on the commercial market before the end of this year. That is going to push us over into next year and continuously this minister gets up and says that Bellamack is on track, which we dispute.
We then move to the suburb of Johnson, which is going to provide about 850 blocks, supposedly also in late 2009. We do not even have Bellamack in the process of being developed, and we are being told we are going to have Johnson by the end of 2009. I do not believe we can believe anything this minister says in regards to release of land.
It is because of their strangulation on the release of land that we have the problem with affordable housing. It is partially the reason we have high rents, and partially the reason why we have high prices for housing. It is a big reason why we are unable to keep many of our professional people in the Territory, notably our teachers and our nurses because they just cannot find accommodation - houses, units, or duplexes - that is affordable, so they pack up and they leave the Northern Territory.
In regards to planning, this minister has a track record for not giving correct information to this parliament, nor giving correct information to the people of the Northern Territory. In October 2007, the Chief Minister of the day, Clare Martin, said they were going to release land in Berrimah, resulting in new dwellings on a 220 ha site. Nothing has actually happened on that site, and I will tell you why.
In this media release dated 8 October 2007, they state Berrimah was going to complement the government’s release of land at Bellamack. We have not even got Bellamack close to coming online, and yet they were talking about bringing Berrimah online. They are saying, and I quote from the press statement:
- Ms Lawrie said the Berrimah Farm site was close to workplaces …
- … enjoyed prevailing breezes as part of the local climate and had existing vegetation.
What the minister did not tell people is that this site is contaminated; was contaminated for a long period of time, was a site used during World War II, and had dumps on it. Interestingly, that was in October 2007 and we still to this day do not have any information from this government regarding the studies they had to undertake to find out if this site is actually safe for residential development.
In September 2008, the minister says: ‘We know the land has been used for things like herbicide experiments and also the preservation of timber logs’. If they knew that, why did they announce it as a residential development? Why did they not do the work beforehand? I will tell you why: they just did not know because they just did not plan. It was a knee-jerk reaction. I can remember the day of that announcement specifically being a Monday. There were comments in the media early in the morning in regard to the lack of land, the lack of land release, the lack of affordable land for Territorians; by that afternoon, we had the announcement by the then Chief Minister that they were going to chop up Berrimah farm.
They said they were going to do soil testing and will receive a report on the extent of what they find. ‘So, if you like’, quote from the minister, ‘it is like a voyage of discovery at the moment’. I do not believe we should take any comfort in that. I do not believe Territorians should take any comfort in that. Quite honestly, I do not believe Territorians or anyone else for that matter if, and we hope it does not, it ever turns into a housing estate that people should live there.
About that same time, this government, with great fanfare, announced that there was going to be a new Harbour Town shopping development, saying that this was going to be a great development in the Berrimah area. It was only a few weeks ago that we heard Harbour Town was not happening. So, there is nothing that we can trust in this minister or this government. One time they say something is going to happen, and then not long after we find out it is not happening at all.
They also are not very good; the minister is not very good with her figures in regard to the finances of the Northern Territory. I draw your attention to earlier this year when the Treasurer said we possibly would get a $200m package from the federal government for new infrastructure in the Northern Territory. Did not know how much, not known what it was going to be for, but we might get $200m. Some time later, in March 2009, a month later, the same minister, the Treasurer, said the stimulus package will result in a total of approximately $500m flowing to the Territory and it would boost our infrastructure. Then, not so long after that, we had the Chief Minister saying it is possibly going to be $450m.
I really do not think this government, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister, really know how much money we are getting from the Commonwealth; they do not know where they are going to spend it; they cannot even get their facts and figures straight and in line. Quite honestly, if they cannot manage the money we get from the Commonwealth, and they do not even know how much we are getting, how can we trust them to handle the budget they are supposedly bringing down next week?
In regard to money from the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government and the minister, the Treasurer, claims that her government will invest $100m towards the port expansion over the next three years. Where is that money going to come from? Where are they going to get this $100m? Then they are seeking a further $200m from Infrastructure Australia. Where is the justification for that? Where is their quantification? Why is it $200m? Where are the sums that tell them that this all they will need? They have a good track record, or some would say an appalling track record, for managing the finances. We know that many of their projects are well over run in regard to their budget.
I put to you, Madam Speaker, and to this House, that I do not think this minister for Infrastructure and Planning really knows how much money is required to develop our port facilities into the near future.
I turn my attention now to another issue where the Treasurer and the minister has misled this House and misled Territorians. In October 2008, the minister said:
- … the local insurance and banking provider TIO is in a strong position despite the global financial crisis.
- She says the overseas volatility will make it harder for Territorians to borrow and invest, but local financial institutions are coping.
‘Our banks are much better than the international banks.
We have a very well regulated system and that has put us in good stead.
TIO is fine, they are tracking along in a comfortable position, bearing in mind there is volatility in the marketplace, but they will see through this global credit squeeze.
Well, blow me down dead! On 10 March, TIO headlines: ‘Shuts up shops, blames crisis’. TIO put off 20 staff and closed two branches, one in the rural area and one in the northern suburbs. Yet, four or five months before, the minister was saying TIO is fine. This is the government’s company; this is something that the Treasurer oversees. It is something she should be well versed in and getting consistent briefings. How is it that in a short period of time, from October through to March, we have our Territory Insurance Office putting off staff, shutting branches, cutting back services, cutting back their credit card facilities, and they are trying to get people to use the Internet and telephone more so they can cope with the situation. Really, this shows to me and to our side that this minister, this Treasurer, really does not know what she is doing; she is not in touch with business or with industry.
I will give you another glaring example. This government is good at fudging figures. In January 2009, record motor vehicle sales; new vehicle sales are a good indicator of how an economy is going and the government frequently trots out figures of the new car sales. What they do not tell us, or the public, is it is not exactly new car sales with Territorians going to a car yard and buying a car. What happens is rental companies bring in their new hire fleet from interstate, register them in the Northern Territory with the Motor Vehicle Registry – they are not bought here – and they are then claimed as new car sales. They have consistently done this. This Treasurer does it, her predecessor did it. It is distorting the figures. It is incompetence on their behalf to mislead this House and Territorians as to how new vehicle sales are tracking or not tracking. These are media statements and comments issued by this Treasurer; they are misleading, and they are not true.
The other area I would like to touch on in regard to this minister’s appalling track record when it comes to planning, following on from the Berrimah Farm proposal to turn it into a housing estate on a toxic piece of land, is that they woke up one day and suddenly realised there was a gaol located right next door to a proposed development. That is when they decided: Oops, this not very good, we better move the gaol. They said they would locate it on a site away from residences; they said it would be appropriate. We are yet to find what the list of sites is they looked at and studied. Then, without any consultation with the Litchfield Shire Council - not one telephone call to the President or to the operational head - the government announced it will put the new gaol at Noonamah, right next door to the proposed development of Weddell. There was no consultation with local residents, there are no plans on display, and there has been no information. The minister for Planning had one or two meetings with residents who live within 2 km who have a private airfield and a private airstrip.
The minister said on radio that she did not say at any time to the people at that meeting that the government could compulsorily acquire their land. I have had meetings with those people, and they have told me firsthand that the minister did say compulsory acquisition is an option. She knows she said that, because I have had a meeting with those people …
Ms Lawrie: No. I said it is not what we would do.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: I have had meetings with those people and they are honest, upright, hard-working Territorians. The government should have known there is a private airstrip there. That private airstrip is well documented in the aviation industry. It is outside of controlled air space and is used by the pastoral industry, by flying schools, by gliders, and the recreational industry, and it is used by international aviators who come through Australia. They plot their path of flight well before they leave their home town. For this minister to say to those people who have been out there since the late 1950s and built this strip in the early 1980s, that we might compulsorily acquire your land, because we can …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That is absolutely an inaccurate reflection of what I said at that meeting. She was not at the meeting. She is making it up.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment please, while I confer with the Clerk.
Ms LAWRIE: You know what happened? They asked if we would because the CLP had, and I said no, this is not about compulsory acquisition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, with regard to your point of order, you may approach me afterwards if you wish to put forward a personal explanation.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Putting the gaol there without any consultation even with the local municipality that manages the area is just alarming. It shows appalling planning. They have had no public consultation whatsoever. There are not even proper maps of where they propose to put it. I have two sets of maps that I managed to obtain from government which both show different locations for the Weddell development and where the Noonamah gaol is going to go.
Referring to the private airfield, it employs an enormous number of people, and it generates a lot of employment. I have a meeting next week with a gentleman who wishes to establish an employment program for Indigenous youth to deliver services to the aircraft landing at this field. Every 100 hours, a light aircraft has to come in for a full service and safety check; it is substantial work that takes some days. This airfield does over 350 of these 100 hour jobs each year. That is an enormous amount of work, and an enormous number of people are employed there servicing the aircraft and other associated activities. Now this government just wants to wipe that all out. To me, it shows their complete disregard for anything in the rural area in regard to business and enterprise.
My colleague, the member for Port Darwin, also spoke about the building certification program and the ‘rooster gate’ affair, and the fact that this minister has scant regard for this serious problem. We had the situation earlier this week where the minister tabled this report and spoke to it for five minutes – five minutes, and then tells us that it is not a safety issue.
I have gone through the report and I believe the methodology is flawed, resulting in a flawed report. We had the consultants in town for two days – two days in Darwin - they did not visit any regional sites, they did not go out of Darwin; so at best it is a desktop study, it is not a proper report. Yet the minister goes on to say: ‘Everything is fine. I have given you a two year moratorium to get your properties up to scratch’. The fact remains, in Tennant Creek alone, 43 non-government assets were not coded, seven residential, 22 sheds, and 14 commercial buildings. There are 19 government buildings in Tennant Creek which house government workers that were not coded and did not have their certification requirements in order.
It alarms me that this Minister for Planning and Lands stands in this House and says it is not a safety issue. I know from personal experience and dealing with the industries, both building and engineering, that certificates of occupation are for two prime reasons: one, the safety of the occupants; and two, the amenity. Yes, it is a certain amount of paperwork, but there are two fundamental things associated with buildings that are of crucial importance in regards to safety - electrical work and plumbing work. As I said before, we do not cast aspersions upon the construction industry, but if something is going to go wrong and does go wrong in those two areas, it can have dire consequences.
It is misleading and basically incorrect to say it does not involve safety at all. I find it alarming that we have someone such as the member for Karama in the very important and serious roles of Treasurer and minister for Planning and Infrastructure; her track record is appalling across all her portfolios. I support the motion my colleague put forward. I urge all Territorians to read this Hansard to see exactly what is going on. It is just appalling.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been in this House now for eight years and seen a number of censure motions and I have been on the end of a few censure motions. This would have to be one of the weakest censure motions I have witnessed in this House. The best censure motion - I am giving the opposition a few tips here, which I probably should not - the best censure motion builds. It builds as Question Time goes on and it gains momentum and the pollie who is in the crosshairs starts to back away a bit and get a bit blowy. Then the coup de grace– the word ‘lie’ or ‘deception’, or whatever you want to say, is uttered. Then the Leader of Government Business usually gets up and says you can only do that by way of substantive motion, and out comes the motion.
What came out here today? It was unlike most censure motions, which are very specific in the case they are prosecuting, very specific indeed. This is quite a general motion. I will read it: I need to suspend so much of standing orders that would prevent me from censuring the acting Chief Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and the member for Karama for lying to this House and lying to Territorians.
There was nothing specified so it left a very wide claim which was prosecuted by the member for Port Darwin. He could go anywhere, basically, and prosecute this ‘lying’ scenario. What really struck me was how initially the case, I will not use the word prosecuted - it was sort of run. It was a very decrepit effort by the member for Goyder. So much so that it had to be wrested out of her hands and given to the member for Port Darwin to actually run the case and be the first speaker on this.
The member for Port Darwin himself admitted this censure motion was a prelude to the budget next week, exactly as the member for Karama and Treasurer said. All you are trying to do is have a lot of smoke and fire and throw some mud, ready for next week so you can interject: ‘You lied, we found last week you lied’ to try to dent the credibility of the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I think the credibility that has really been dented here today is, first, the member for Goyder. I believe there would be members on the other side looking at the member for Goyder – she is a very nice person, a very nice family - but I do not believe she has what it takes to be deputy leader. The role of the deputy leader, hopefully, is a statesman. The deputy leader is …
Mr Tollner: You want to be deputy leader.
Dr BURNS: … someone who really has to be strong and prosecute the case. I do not see that, unfortunately, in the member for Goyder. I talk about …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could you pause, please. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to cease interjecting. I have asked you several times now. Please cease your interjections.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I imagine the other side would be concerned about this because I do not believe the member for Goyder is cutting it. Similarly, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is cutting it, either. I believe what happened here last night and yesterday and, to some extent, today demonstrated that.
This censure has been swirling around in the public arena for sometime now, not really cutting it, recycled today with a few little add-ons. It was mounted at Question Time when we knew the member for Fong Lim had an MPI on what I believe to be a legitimate and important issue - public housing. It is an issue he is very passionate about, and that was pushed back to the very recesses of business today just to try to lift the profile of the member for Goyder; and also, in terms of the member for Port Darwin, to reclaim some of the territory I believe he plainly lost in this place last night.
If I was someone on the other side witnessing what I saw here last night, I would be thinking: ‘Whoa! What is going on here? Does this person know as much as they say they do about parliamentary practice and about political tactics?’ I do not believe so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe the frustrations and the petulance is starting to rise from the other side, and some of the cracks and divisions are starting to become evident. It became evident with the attempted attack on my colleague, the member for Karama, here today.
I was reminded, as the member for Port Darwin spoke, of the words of an old song: ‘What’s it all about, Alfie’. That was what it was all about today and you can only ponder on that old song from the hit parade. What is it all about? It is about trying to reclaim what was lost last night. What became apparent to me as the member for Port Darwin wandered off into the cooling systems of Parliament House - what was that all about …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! As I understand it, you are not allowed to make reference to people when they are outside the Chamber.
A member: It was a metaphor.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member opposite should not have alluded to the member for Port Darwin being out of the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you cannot refer to the absence of a member, but you can refer to a member who may happen to be absent.
Dr BURNS: It was only you who referred to the possible absence of a member, not me. So the member for Port Darwin, metaphorically speaking, was wandering off into the cooling system of Parliament House as he was speaking here, and I thought to myself: what is that all about, Alfie? Once again, this is part of a veiled attack that has been going on, I will politicise it, a veiled attack that has been going against our very competent and able Speaker, you, Madam Speaker. I believe there has been a campaign over this particular issue and on other issues of an attack on you, as the member for Karama pointed out; and a personal attack on her, and I have had personal attacks myself.
What it is all about is trying to wear down. You believe you can wear down government members and we are suddenly going to chuck in the towel and say: ‘That is it. I am walking away. There is going to be a by-election’. Well, I can assure you that each and every one of us is committed to our electorates. We stood last year for a four year term, and we are here for the four year term. We are here through thick and thin for our electorates, primarily, and for the Territory has a whole. So, just forget it, fellows. What you are doing only makes us stronger and that sort of attack only binds us together because we can see this is the CLP of old. This is the way they used to attack people, they used to monster people, they use to try to kick people, and that is one of the reasons they were in power for 27 years.
Much of the debate here today is about deception around financial figures. I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that inquired into matters relating to the CLP’s last budget before they lost office, the 2000-01 budget. What happened was – I believe some members have been around long enough - the then Treasurer, Mr Mike Reed, decided that in an election year he wanted to show increased spending in Health, Education and Police. What he did was wind back the forward estimates of spending so it would look as though they were actually spending more than they did. In fact, they were just spending exactly the same ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What does this have to do with Delia lying?
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. There is no point of order. It is an extremely general censure motion relating to the budget in part.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I am alluding to here is I am not sure whether they do not have a grasp on history, some of them, or they do not know what has happened, but we know what happened with the CLP …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am reading the censure motion now. It is actually about the member for Karama lying to this House, and lying to Territorians. It is not that broad at all, Madam Speaker – it is quite narrow.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to resume your seat. You may not have been listening but there have been many comments regarding the budget in this debate. The minister has the call.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As part of that Public Accounts Committee inquiry we found that …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The references to budgets were budgets carried out by the member for Karama, not previous governments. We are not straying that far from the subject. The subject is the member for Karama lying to this House. The member for Johnston would do well to try to defend, in some manner, the member for Karama.
Mr KNIGHT: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: The previous two members, Port Darwin and Goyder, had strayed extensively beyond the terms of the censure. As a matter of consistency, I would like you to rule against the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The actual censure motion relates only to the member for Karama. However, in putting the motion, the member for Port Darwin spoke about a large number of other things which are completely irrelevant, in many ways, to the motion. I allowed that to happen. Similarly, the member for Goyder also spoke of things not directly related to the motion. That was allowed. The minister responded and spoke about the matters raised by those two members. The minister who now has the call is also speaking about those members and relating them to the motion. Minister, you have the call. Keep it as close as possible to the motion.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the feeling the member for Fong Lim is going to jump again.
Mr Tollner: I thought the minister might be interested in defending the Deputy Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, what I am demonstrating here, and what has already been demonstrated – it is on the public record - is the hypocrisy of members of opposite to accuse our Treasurer for being flexible and showing that flexibility in a global financial crisis, revising budget estimates based on solid data and estimates from the Australian government and what is happening on a worldwide basis. She is working closely with her Treasury officials, in stark contrast to the fiddling of the books by the last CLP government for ‘presentation purposes’, winding back their estimates to hoodwink. Talk about hoodwinking the people of the Northern Territory: what they tried to do, and what they did do, in an election year is pretend they were spending more than they were on their budget, on key areas of Police, Health and Education. It was shown clearly through the evidence that that was the case.
Do not come in here accusing our Treasurer of being dishonest for simply revising - and doing it in a public sense - estimates related to the budget in uncertain financial times. That is patently ridiculous, and I completely reject it. It is all part of this confabulation that you tried to work up here today, pushing what the member of Fong Lim wants to do later today, which is debate a matter of public importance - a very important matter of public importance about housing - basically just pushing it off. I think there are many members on the opposite side who have glass jaws: they can dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it.
Madam Speaker, I was impressed by the Treasurer - I have known her and her mother for a long time now – and the way she reduced this thing to a test of character, and the way she explained her beliefs and her moral code to this parliament. I do not think anyone here could doubt her sincerity or the basis of her beliefs, or the basis of her commitment to this Northern Territory in which she was born, in which she grew up, where she is bringing up her children, and to which she has given many years of public service. She is committed to this Northern Territory, and she demonstrated that in a noble, admirable fashion by what she had to say today. I congratulate her for it, and I am proud to be her colleague.
Much has been made of Bellamack, and whether it is going to meet the time lines, etcetera - it is an important issue, I do not deny that - and the issues of the developments at Berrimah, Johnston and Zuccoli. These are all important issues, but I honestly do not believe that a censure motion is a place to debate these and the details of these. That is a matter, really, for a matter of public importance, or questions during Question Time, or during the budget process, or during Estimates. You will have the opportunity, as I alluded to earlier today, to question the Treasurer and the minister at length, with her public servants and department people sitting beside her during Estimates.
I just believe it was an attempt now of: ‘We have ‘chook gate’’. You see them around the table over there and up on the 4th floor, sitting around saying: ‘Well, we have chook gate but that has sort of run its course in a way. We do not have anything new with chook gate, so we will draw on these other things like the parliamentary cooling system, the air-conditioning system, and Bellamack and Zuccoli, the airport out at Noonamah; anything we can bring in to fill up the time for this censure motion’.
Madam Speaker, it has really shown this is a very, very poor censure motion, indeed.
Let us turn to the major issue, which is chook gate, as it is called, and the Northern Territory building certification system. The minister has made it plain today, and answered the question very directly, that she was prepared to direct the department and the relevant authorities, if necessary, to cease prosecution against that particular business in Tennant Creek. She has also made it plain, and the document that she has tabled makes it plain, that she also said to the department, and really made it clear to them, that she believed that it was wrong to be prosecuting one business, particularly one that I believe had a Certificate of Occupancy issued by that time, when there were probably other businesses and, as we know now, government agencies occupying in Tennant Creek without an adequate Certificate of Occupancy.
As she said, whether Mr Hancock deduced that interchange was somehow a verbal instruction, who knows? But the result is a positive result. Why is the result positive? The charges were dropped against the Red Rooster in Tennant Creek, and that was a result the member for Katherine was also working towards, because he wrote to me, as Attorney-General at that time, requesting that. It was certainly something the CLP wanted to see. Moreover, and more importantly, what we see here, and through this report which was tabled the other day, was there was a range of actions proposed and recommended to try to work through these issues within the certification system.
I know it is a difficult issue. I was the Planning minister for a number of years, and Certificates of Occupancy was an issue then. The reason it was an issue is partly because there has been different legislation which has come on at different times. There were times when the Commonwealth administered the Territory and it did not have any paperwork whatsoever, it just built the buildings and moved on; then you have a whole raft of changes. It has always been a very contentious area. Coupled with the lack of building certifiers, particularly in the more remote regions of the Northern Territory, it becomes a real issue. Government, in the tranche of changes which I brought in as minister, tried to address that by having a two tiered system to recognise there were remote areas and tried to make it flexible.
This report clearly shows there needs to be more action. The minister has promised and undertaken to see that action through, and I commend her for that. We are on the pathway to fixing it; something not recognised by the opposition. This is a minister who is actually working to fix problems in regional Northern Territory, and I commend her for that.
I can find no reason whatsoever to support this censure motion. Madam Speaker, I move the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the member for Port Darwin be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY BILL
(Serial 22)
(Serial 22)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. First, I commend the minister and his department for bringing this legislation forward. It is important because it will provide a framework to establish the use of geothermal energy in the Northern Territory in a sustainable way that also respects the rights and interests of local people.
In considering this legislation I thought it was important to look into exactly what geothermal energy was. It allowed me to do my own homework and I have heard today many others have done the same, to look at how it would operate within the Northern Territory and why we need it. I understand that some jurisdictions already have similar legislation in place, while others are in the process of putting it together, so it is timely for the Northern Territory to be debating this important legislation.
We also know that some countries have used geothermal energy for some time. We only have to look across the Tasman to New Zealand to see evidence of this. The potential of geothermal energy has long been known. In fact, the word geothermal has Greek origins, as I am sure the minister would know.
Mr Vatskalis: Absolutely.
Ms McCARTHY: It translates to earth and heat. Turning to more contemporary times, it was not until the early 20th century that people started to see its real potential. In looking into geothermal energy more thoroughly, I found there are four different types of geothermal energy – hydrothermal, geo-pressured, hot dry rock, and magma.
In Australia, in particular in the Northern Territory, our geothermal energy would come from hot dry rock. Hot rock technology was developed in the 1970s and has been enhanced considerably in a short period. Hot rock technology drills down into the earth until it reaches a point where the earth is hot enough for the energy to be harnessed. The well that is drilled is generally 3 km or more under the surface. Once the well is created, water is poured down through the naturally hot rock which creates steam which is then turned into energy. Turning water into steam using the earth’s natural energy means that geothermal power is a low-emitting environmental source of energy.
In 2001, the first geothermal exploration licences were issued and there is now a geothermal power plant operating in Birdsville, Queensland. Geothermal energy and technology is rapidly emerging as a potentially viable energy resource. It is believed that the Northern Territory has a huge untapped resource in geothermal energy which could be harnessed to the benefit of Territorians.
I digress here to look at what this could mean for my constituents in Arnhem as we progress in many different areas with housing and education. In the scientific field, this is one area I know there would be many participants very keen to understand and learn more about, given the opportunity. I would like to express to the minister, in his deliberations and in the plans for the future, that there is a considerable effort in encouraging residents in our regions to seriously look at this type of energy, as we do with solar and as we need to do more with wind energy.
Further exploration will help to identify ideal locations for harnessing this energy resource. A real benefit of encouraging this energy resource is it is environmentally friendly, and it is exciting that the Northern Territory is looking forward and encouraging the exploration of a low emission, renewable energy resource.
We all know that climate change is happening, so we know we have to invest in energy projects such as geothermal energy to reduce our emissions. The real benefits of geothermal energy are extremely exciting. In fact, Geoscience Australia estimates if we are able to use 1% of Australia’s geothermal energy, it would generate 26 000 times Australia’s total annual energy consumption. This is a staggering estimation which will go a long way to reduce our carbon emissions.
I was pleased to learn that the Australian government has invested $50m in the geothermal drilling program as part of the $500m Renewable Energy Fund. This funding encourages geothermal exploration throughout Australia as we look for alternative and renewable energy resources. Last year the federal government also launched the Geothermal Industry Development Framework. This framework is encouraging companies to explore and invest in geothermal energy. It is good to see the federal government’s commitment to finding renewable energy resources.
This legislation will facilitate further exploration and possible creation of projects in the Northern Territory. The establishment of geothermal energy in the Northern Territory will bring benefits which not only include a sustainable and renewable energy resource but the creation of jobs. I believe geothermal energy could have huge potential in my electorate of Arnhem. Not only is it a renewable energy resource but it could create additional jobs other than the traditional jobs in our communities, assist in stimulating our local economies, and provide another area of expertise for those who live in our regions who may wish to learn more about it and get themselves interested in it. Our government is focused on ensuring people in the regions are able to tap into jobs, and this is one area that certainly could be of benefit.
As many of you know, I am passionate about growing our own, and geothermal energy projects in my electorate would create local jobs and provide specialised training in this rapidly growing industry. In fact, the Australian government is predicting that the industry will be viable within five years. It is good news for our economy and also for people looking to get into this field of work. As the technology and research in geothermal energy improves, so does the interest in exploring potential projects right here in the Territory.
This legislation will provide an appropriate framework for companies undertaking exploration and eventually tap into our potentially large natural resource. We know that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and what better way to do this but through a low emitting renewable energy source.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I place on the record that this whole idea was a completely new one to me when I came into this parliament. I take this opportunity to commend the member for Nelson for what many of us viewed as banging on about something that was totally new. He has been here for a number of years and has spoken time and time again about this possibility, and it is really good to know more about it and see how the debate has moved on. I take this opportunity to commend the member for Nelson for his leadership and foresight in this matter.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I am not going to go back to explain hot rocks and geothermal. I believe we all understand the geothermal concept. Everyone seems to have done their research. However, I was surprised at the difference in opinion between two members of the opposition We have a member of parliament who says it took too long, we should have brought earlier, and the member for Fong Lim said it was pie-in-the-sky stuff and asked why we need to have this legislation now.
Let me go back. Yes, we announced this in 2006. The problem is this is very new legislation. It was very easy to ask to do some amendments on existing petroleum legislation, like other states did. The problem we have then is, by doing these amendments; we will create more problems than resolving them. It is better to have primary legislation from a brand new industry to address the issues of this industry, rather than trying to make some amendments to patch legislation. That took time, I admit, because the draft bill was circulated to the industry and to the public, and we incorporated all their comments into the legislation. Also, when we brought the legislation to parliament, we realised there were some issues and we wanted to make some amendments. We had to queue up behind a number of other pieces of legislation being drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. So, we had to take time. I am very pleased that we did take time because we now have official legislation that is workable, that meets the needs of the industry, and provides the basis for a new industry in the Territory.
I thank the member for Nelson. I know the member for Nelson went from geothermal and hot rocks to nuclear energy and solar, and probably that is a debate for another time. I acknowledge the member for Nelson is ahead of his time. I agree with him in some areas. I have always been pro-nuclear. Things change, minds change, opinions change but, on purely scientific grounds, if we are going to eliminate or reduce carbon emissions, it does not matter if we use clean coal or gas; the only solution we have is nuclear energy. However, this is a debate for another time.
I will fully support renewable energy. The reality in the Territory with such a small population is we cannot, and will not, have in the immediate future anything other than gas-produced energy, or utilise wind energy or whatever. At the moment the search is on in the Barkly area. The problem in the Barkly is a very small population, no industry to utilise and, of course, solar in combination with diesel or gas generators. The plan of the government is when Blacktip comes online these communities will be converted from diesel to gas.
Member for Goyder, I have been talking to the federal government since the Coalition was in power about the flow-through savings scheme. I saw it in Japan and I spoke to the then minister about it, who told me that he was for it, but his colleagues did not support him, the Treasurer did not support him - that was Peter Costello at the time. I have been talking to the new minister, Martin Ferguson, about it and continue to talk to him about it. I know Mr Ferguson supports it but, of course, you have to get it through the Treasurer. People sometimes think the opposition is the enemy, but I believe the Treasurer is the enemy; Treasurers will try anything and are very effective at stopping things.
Member for Barkly, I thank you for your comments. I have a map that shows that most of the hot rocks - and that is established by deep drilling for oil - is concentrated through the middle to the north of the Northern Territory. These areas are remote but these areas provide us with the opportunity to establish energy factories or power generation facilities for the mines which develop in that area. Some mines are so remote they cannot be connected to the grid, but a number of mines will operate there in the near future.
Member for Fong Lim, I am always fascinated by the idea of clean coal. I do not know how clean coal can be. The reality is, if you burn coal you get carbon dioxide, and this is the problem we have. You can scrub coal-fired power stations, you can remove the sulphur dioxide, and you can remove the fly out; you can remove everything but carbon dioxide. I share some of your thoughts and frustration but we are now putting the basis for a green industry because, irrespective of the argument whether it is renewable energy or not, the reality is that emissions from this kind of power generation will be minimal compared with some others.
As I said, this map was generated from information from the holes drilled in the past by oil companies. Some of these drill holes can be up to 3.5 km deep. My information is that one of these holes would cost about $6.5m to $7m to drill; so it is expensive but we have to put this in place now rather than rush to put legislation through if people are interested.
At least now we will provide the industry with surety. They know what they are going to face when they come here; they know about the exploration leases; they know about the ability to produce energy on-site. They know what they have to do, and they know what tenure they will have in an area where they are exploring. No one is going to commit money for exploration unless they are assured they are going to get some return and have surety from the government that they are not going to have a lease today and have it taken away tomorrow.
I thank members for their contribution. As you are aware, we have some amendments and we will go into committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 8.
Clause 8 negatived.
New clause 8:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I believe that everyone has the amendments in front of them, so I will not read all the text. I will only read the heading of the proposed changes.
Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.1: insert a new clause 8 ‘Act binds Crown’.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I have no questions in relation to the amendments specifically. They are amendments that are here to rectify some problems that have been found subsequent to introducing the original bill.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, in relation to the new clause 8, I thank the government for the change. It is a sensible change. It tells the industry that the Crown is also bound by the conditions within this bill. I believe that is the right and proper way to go.
New clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 13.
Clause 13 negatived.
New clause 13:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.2: insert new clause 13, General entitlement to apply for permit.
Clause 13 has been reworded to clarify who may apply for a geothermal exploration permit and better define the blocks, the land, which is available for application to ensure that an application for a geothermal exploration permit cannot be made over reserved blocks or existing grant of authorities or pre-existing permit applications.
New clause 13 agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: I invite defeat of clause 14.
Clause 14 negatived.
New clause 14:
Mr VATSKALIS: I move Amendment 8.3: insert new clause 14, Consideration of application received on same day.
Clause 14 has been reworded to clarify that the minister must determine which geothermal exploration permit will receive consideration if two or more permit applications for substantially the same area are received on the same business day. This allows the government to determine early in the authority granting procedure which application will be scrutinised and be advertised for public review, and the permit application not chosen will be rejected. The reason for that is that we can have two applications for the same area, or substantially the same area.
What we are really looking for is not for the name of the company but if the company is going to start exploration quickly, if the company is going to have expenditure in place, a plan in place, local employment benefits to community. So if we have two applications exactly the same, but one is going to offer more to the community and to the government, the minister makes a decision to award, in most cases, as it happens now, to the application which provides more to the Territory community.
Mr WOOD: In relation to new clause 14(2) where the minister must decide which application has the greatest merit to be given consideration for the grant of a permit, is it possible that there is an explanation note in relation to what the government means by ‘greatest merit’? You explained it just a little while ago, but I do not know whether it would be good to have some idea in note form in the act to say exactly what the government means by greatest merit?
Mr VATSKALIS: This is what is happening now. Merit cannot be defined in the act because merit may mean a lot of things. For example, the level of expenditure; the level of exploration; the fact that one company is prepared to employ local people for the exploration; the fact the company has a timetable in place when the exploration will take place and where the production will take place. These examples are happening now when we have land released and we have corporate expressions of interest. All the applications are assessed and the one that actually has the greatest merit for the community, the government and the operation receives the tick.
Mr TOLLNER: Have expressions of interest or inquiries been made to the minister’s office for exploration permits?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do not have exploration applications for the simple reason no one is going to explore a region if there is no legislative framework to establish how to do it or what exploration grant or lease or permission would be issued. If someone came to the department or the minister’s office to say they actually wanted to explore geothermal rocks, the advice was: we are putting legislation to parliament, wait for it, it will be out soon, so you will know exactly what you have to do.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I asked whether your department has received any expressions of interest to explore for hot rocks?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice from the department is that, yes, we have received many inquiries about exploration in the Territory for geothermal rocks.
New clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.4: in subclause (2) omit ‘minister’ and substitute ‘minister and the person who made the objection or submission’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 24 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.5: in the heading after ‘on’ insert ‘geothermal’. Just a minor amendment of new words.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.6: in the heading after ‘for’ insert ‘geothermal’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.7: in subclause (1)(a)(ii), after ‘energy’ insert ‘and the generation of power’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.8: after subclause (2) insert:
- ‘(2A) Activities relating to the generation of power include the construction and maintenance of buildings and the infrastructure in connection with the power generation’.
Mr TOLLNER: I have a question in relation to the generation of power, the maintenance of buildings and the infrastructure in connection with power generation. Has the government been involved in the geodynamic project in Innamincka? Has the government provided any grants or funding to that project? Can you give us some idea what types of construction, maintenance and infrastructure would be required at a typical hot rocks power generation facility?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the government has not put any money into a project which is in another state. The government is prepared to put money into projects that are in our own state. Currently, there is an exploration incentive for companies that explore in the Territory. Companies can be provided with up to $100 000 for dollar-for-dollar exploration in the Territory. The Territory government will only be involved in projects in the Northern Territory.
As for the infrastructure that would take place if there is potential for production of energy at a site with hot rocks - that would be a decision by the company, not by the government. The reason we put in this amendment is because we wanted to clarify the rights of the holder of a geothermal production lease that can use that lease to build facilities for generation of electricity from the geothermal energy produced on the lease. For example, we have a company that discovers hot rocks in the Territory; they can generate power. They may decide to generate power on-site because they have a lease, and provide the power to the mine which is close to the site.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, can I just correct you there? The government does provide money for projects interstate. In fact, you have a bill on the Notice Paper at the moment in relation to Lake Eyre, which is, essentially, a money bill where government will be funding another body to conduct research for environmental reasons in another state.
Mr VATSKALIS: Government provides money for other projects such as environmental purposes, but that is through agreement between the Commonwealth and the states. It happens not only with Lake Eyre, but in other areas. We are referring here to a mining project, to exploration, to something that actually has to be located in the Northern Territory. Our government does not subsidise BHP in Western Australia, and does not provide money for exploration in New South Wales. This is different from what you are referring to with Lake Eyre.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, I understand what you are saying, minister, but you must understand also there is a strong link between the research into this technology and hoping to have a hot rocks industry here in the Northern Territory. By passing this bill, it is clear that the government would be keen to see hot rocks technology occurring in the Northern Territory. That being the case, I would have thought the government would be keen to support any research into that, irrespective of where it occurs, considering the fact that it will have a significant impact on a future industry here in the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government is very happy and prepared to support research done in the Northern Territory, not interstate. The only difference would be if that research is done with an agreement between other states and the Commonwealth for scientific purposes. We are very happy to support the research on hot rocks if we get an application, but it has to happen in the Territory.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.9: in the heading omit ‘licence’ and substitute with ‘lease’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.10: in subclauses (1) and (2)(a) omit all reference to ‘licence’ and substitute ‘lease’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 read:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.11: in clause 35(2) omit ‘be in’ and substitute ‘be substantially in’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amendment, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 52, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 52A:
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.12: that proposed new clause 52A be inserted in the bill after clause 52 in Part 5, Division 3: Drill cores, cuttings and other samples.
New clause 52A agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 55, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 56 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.13: in clause 56(1) omit and substitute:
- (1) The Minister may, by written notice, accept the surrender of a geothermal authority, or part of a geothermal authority area, only if
satisfied the applicant has complied with the conditions of the geothermal authority for all of the geothermal authority area.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 59 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.14: omit clause 59(1)(b) and substitute:
- (b) before the Minister registers the transfer of a geothermal authority interest; or
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 68, by leave, together and agreed to.
Clause 69 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.15: omit subclause (4).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.16: omit subclause (6) and substitute:
- (6) A person may inspect the register during the normal business hours of the Agency and, on request, may be given a copy or summary of information in the register.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.17: in subclause (7)(b) omit ‘register’ and substitute:
- ‘register and for a copy or summary of information given to the person.’
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clause 73.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! Sorry, did I hear you right, saying you are inviting defeat?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: The question is that it stand as printed?
Mr Tollner: No, he has not talked about …
- Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay, sorry.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh I see, right.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.18: insert new clause 73 ‘Notice of Registration’. The new version of clause 73 expands and clarifies the minister’s role and responsibilities when making changes to the register of an authority. It provides that relevant parties to an authority are formally notified of any change to the register, and gives the minister discretion to notify anyone else with an interest in the authority of the register change.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, in relation to registering a title, I go back to an earlier discussion we had in relation to what is considered merit, and you said there was a range of things. One could be where someone wants to actually develop this. Has any consideration been given to organisations which simply may want to warehouse titles, that is, sit on them forever and a day? In the case, for example, where there are a couple of companies vying for a particular title, how can the minister determine which of those companies will not warehouse that particular title?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do look at is warehousing. When companies come to us and propose a plan for exploration, they have to put a plan of exploration, how they are going to do it, the time they are going to do it, what money they are going to spend. That is one of the issues we examine. We do not want to allow people to come, put in an application and lock up a piece of land without doing anything for a year, five years, 10 years or 20 years. We understand the technology is new. We provide exploration permits for exploration after we consider all their proposals. After they do the exploration, because the technology is new, we will allow them to maintain the block for a period of time. However, it has to be a period of time well specified which would not permit people coming in and locking up a prospective area for 20 or 30 years.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, can you tell what that period of time is? Is that in the legislation?
Mr VATSKALIS: The period for exploration is three lots of five years. After that term has expired they may consider if they want to keep their block or they want to relinquish it
Mr TOLLNER: Once it has gone past the exploration stage to the mining stage, if that is the correct term, how long can they sit on it?
Mr VATSKALIS: At the end of the exploration period they have to make a decision to keep it and develop it or not, and that is specified. As I explained to you before, the bill provides for the grant of three different titles. The first one, a geothermal exploration permit for contact exploration for heat sources, for three lots of five years. A geothermal retention licence where the resources have been discovered but cannot yet be commercially extracted. And a geothermal production lease on which to develop commercial resources that may be viable. The retention lease also is three lots of five years. So, three lots of five years for exploration and three lots of five years for the retention lease.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, the reason I ask these questions is because we are talking about unproven technology. You have indicated the department has already received interest from people wishing explore for hot rocks. Obviously, no one really has an idea as to when the technology will be proven. Someone may well go out, explore for hot rocks, find hot rocks, sit on the exploration lease as long as they possibly can; go to the next stage, sit on that and find out the technology is not quite there. I would imagine they would feel unfairly treated if they were forced to give up title because the technology was not quite there in order to develop that particular resource.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, exploration permits allow you to explore, so you can apply for a maximum of three lots of five years. After that it is not an automatic granting of a retention lease, you have to apply for it. The department will be able to assess if the technology is there or not before granting or not granting the application. Every time it comes up for renewal, the department once again will assess if the technology is there yet. There is no automatic right of renewal; it is upon application.
Mr TOLLNER: I take it from what you are saying, minister, that the companies involved would have to be of quite substantial nature in order to go through these processes with no real light at the end of the tunnel apart from a dream that one day, down the track, we may have the technology in place to exploit that particular resource. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Most of the companies that currently do mining exploration are not the big companies, not BHP or Rio Tinto. It is actually small explorers and when they hit the jackpot they can then flog off their tenement. The same thing happened with Bootu Creek, and with Arafura Resources. The harsh realty is big companies do not like to risk their shareholders’ money. They rely upon discoveries by smaller companies, and I expect the same thing will happen here. When someone hits a really hot spot then they can go to BHP and say: ‘I have a tenement that can generate 170 to 180 degrees. It starts at X depth’, and then the big companies will assess whether they want to exploit it.
Mr TOLLNER: But you get my point? I understand that the scratchers are the ones who generally make the discoveries and will want to sell that lease to an organisation that has the capacity to exploit the resource. I am getting to the point where I am asking about the organisation that is capable of exploiting that resource. As you say, these large companies have an obligation to shareholders. Has any assessment been done as to what large companies are interested in buying up proven hot rock resources? Is there the confidence in the marketplace that this technology will arrive at any point soon?
Mr VATSKALIS: Many of these organisations develop the technologies currently, and many people make a lot of money because they take a risk finding something that possibly today is not exploitable, but may be exploitable in two years time, three years time. The biggest incentive is that after the exploration phase, during the retention of the lease, people have to apply for the retention of the lease, but also the minister, under the legislation, has the right to go back and ask them why they should not developed it, and the reason why they should develop it. If the minister gets an unsatisfactory answer, he can cancel the lease. So the companies, after the exploration phase, have a really strong incentive to develop what they have found, otherwise they lose their retention lease.
Mr TOLLNER: Of course, minister, if the technology is not there, you could hardly blame the company for not developing the resource. Do you take my point?
Mr VATSKALIS: No one forces companies to apply for exploration or to explore and spend money for something if they are not sure they are going to make money out of it. We do not force people to undertake exploration. However, we do provide a legislative framework for them to know, as surety, when they get a lease that they can get a retention lease, how long this lease will last , and a development lease.
Mr TOLLNER: I suppose that is not quite my point, minister. I will backtrack a bit. This is a very risky business. All mining is risky, like making films I suppose, but it is even more risky when, as we heard in debates today, it is an extremely expensive mining operation. It costs a lot of money to drill very deep holes, to set up some of the equipment that is required, and the technology is not proven, the technology is not there yet. This is the point: has any modelling been done to see whether companies are interested in taking on these proven resources, given the fact that not only is any mining operation risky, but in this particular case the level of risk is elevated significantly because the technology does not even exist to exploit that?
Another example, minister, may be in the clean coal area. I imagine at times there will be companies hunting around for holes in the ground in which to pump carbon dioxide. I have not seen too much of a market for that at the moment. I imagine it is because the technology is not quite there to utilise that. The question, fundamentally, is: has anything been done to ascertain whether any companies are even interested in this?
Mr VATSKALIS: First of all, the reason why the tenure periods are for such a long period of time is in order to alleviate the risk. You do not see the same for mining oil and gas. The other thing, it is not the governments that do the modelling, but the private companies undertaking exploration of unproven or very new technology. The companies are doing that risk analysis. The companies do the modelling. I know you are talking about this in general - hot rocks and geothermal energy - which has nothing to do with clause 73 which we are actually debating now.
Once again, I say the modelling does not have to be done by us. What we have to do, as government, is to provide the legislative framework for these people to know how things operate and where they stand if they apply for an exploration licence and, later, for a retention licence.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, you would be aware also that government reacts to the needs of industry. In this case it seems to me you are chasing a pie-in-the-sky idea; that there is simply too much risk involved for companies to take on these leases simply because the technology is not there yet and there is no indication at all as to when that technology will proven.
Mr VATSKALIS: As you said before, risk is inherent in mining operations and exploration. When a company comes to the Territory and wants to do mining exploration, we do not do modelling for them. What we do is provide legislation in place and, if we have information about ground surveys, aerial surveys, or geological surveys we provide this information. They take this information and can do the numbers themselves. We record information and we, either through the Commonwealth or ourselves, provide information to them about protocol, and we provide the legislative framework. What they do with that it is their business.
There is unproven technology - 20years ago no one would have expected an 800 km underwater pipeline to come from Western Australia and bring gas to Darwin. Today it is happening. As I said, people and companies undertake their own risk; they should not expect the Australian taxpayer to do their risk analysis for them.
Mr TOLLNER: Point taken. Twenty years ago we would not have had mobile phones.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right; someone took the risk.
New clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.19, subclause (3) omit ‘the approved form’ and substituting ‘writing’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.20: in the heading, omit ‘Land Title’ and substitute ‘Law of Property’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.21: in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) omit ‘Land Title’ and substitute ‘Law of Property’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80.
Clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 negatived.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move that the proposed new clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 be inserted in the bill.
New Clauses 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80, as proposed, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 97, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move that amendment 8.23 be agreed to: Part 9, omit ‘Proceeding’ in the heading ‘Committee Proceedings’ and substitute with ‘Proceedings’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: In relation to section 99(2) of the act, in the Mining Management Act under offences there, the wording used is: ‘10% of specified penalty in respect of each day’. Yet, in the Geothermal Energy Bill, a similar offence would only attract 10 penalty units, which is $1100, when it may be hundreds of times if it were a serious accident. What I am saying is that, when an operator is told to stop performing an action by an authorised person, but continues with that action when they would only be fined $1100 on top of any specified penalties decided in the court, this is in stark contrast to the Mining Management Act, which would penalise the operator 10% of the total specified penalty per day of the operation after the notice to stop. For example, if the specified penalty under the Mining Management Act were $100 000, the operator would be charged an additional $10 000 for every day they failed to comply with the order. I am questioning why there is a difference between the ongoing penalty regime in the Mining Management Act and the ongoing penalty regime in the Geothermal Energy Bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: These are different acts which do not agree. I agree with what you say. This is a brand new act. So there are different penalties under this act and there will be different penalties under the Mining Management Act. The hot rocks will come under the Geothermal Energy Act, while the Mining Management Act applies to minerals. We have a similar situation if you discover oil and if you discover coal. Coal comes under the Minerals Act; oil comes under the Petroleum Act. This is a different act altogether, so there are different provisions for different acts, and that is usual. This is a new act. These are new provisions. The Mining Act is currently under review, and the penalties would be reviewed as well, so I would not be surprised if I bring to parliament a new act and we will find that is similar to the new Mining Act.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, I hear what you are saying, and I realise it is a new bill and it is totally different to the Mining Act or the Mining Management Act. However, I was looking at the differential in penalty between the two and why this is such a small penalty when the penalty that exists in the Mining Management Act is so much larger.
Mr VATSKALIS: This act describes the penalty in penalty units, while the Mining Act is still in dollars. The clause says that a court may, in addition to any penalty imposed for the offence - and there is no limitation on how much the maximum penalty might be - impose a 10% penalty for every day the offence continues to be committed. It is a provision of the act to penalise people who do not obey the law. That was the advice we received from Parliamentary Counsel on how it should be drafted.
Madam CHAIR: Minister, if I could just check with you – we have moved Amendment 8.23?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, we moved it.
Clauses 98 to 116, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 117 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.24: omit subclause (1).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.25: in subclause (2) omit ‘other information’ and substitute ‘information’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.26: in subclause (2)(c) omit ‘substitute’ and insert subclauses (2)(c) and (2)(d).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.27: in subclause (3) omit:
- ‘not, at any time, release or publish the following information about a geothermal production’
and substitute:
- ‘not release or publish the following information about a geothermal production lease during the term of the’
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 118 to 121, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 122 read.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I move Amendment 8.28: omit clause 122(3) and substitute:
- (3) The regulations may also provide for any matter relevant to an application to a prescribed tribunal permitted under this Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
UNIT TITLE SCHEMES BILL
(Serial 35)
(Serial 35)
Continued from 27 November 2009.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I understand that the intention of the bill is to facilitate the development and administration of unit title schemes which are flexible and meet the contemporary needs of today as Darwin and the Northern Territory develop. This bill will also regulate the operation of these schemes. In talking to this legislation, I will not go through the legislation clause by clause, but what I will do is list some of the issues and concerns as they have been put to me in my discussions with industry people.
The first point that I would like to raise is the short time frame and how this bill and the discussion papers were put out for public circulation. It was done right at the end of last year, somewhere around 29 November, coming into the Christmas and holiday period which did not give a lot of time for consultation with the industry, in particular the real estate industry. I know they asked for extensions of time, but it was not received; not a good way to go about introducing new legislation. Having said that, we are not in a position to oppose this legislation, however, I would like to list some areas of concern and trust they are taken into consideration prior to any enforcement of this legislation.
There is reference throughout the act to various sections requiring unanimous resolutions. The definition of unanimous resolutions as set out in the proposed act is, and I quote: ‘A motion is passed by unanimous resolution if no vote is counted against the motion.’ My question is: does this mean if there are 10 units and only five members of the body corporate constitute a quorum and sufficient notice was provided to the owners that a unanimous resolution was on the table for discussion, if only five out of the 10 units respond, is this classified as unanimous resolution as passed?
In conducting meetings and if the true meaning of unanimous resolution is one vote per unit, one vote per unit must be obtained for it to be a unanimous resolution, an abstention from voting is classified as neither a yes or a no vote. The Unit Titles Act clearly states that a unanimous resolution consists of votes from all the members of a body corporate. However, this has, at times, proven impossible to obtain and hence causes confusion and sometimes suffering for all parties involved, including the landlords, the tenants and the real estate industry generally over many years. Whilst many parts of the industry, I have been briefed, agrees that the use of the unanimous resolution, in its true meaning, for some minor part of the act is necessary, the industry and ourselves cannot understand why reference is made to 90% of the owners based on unit entitlements when, clearly, a special resolution would suffice.
Madam Speaker, we cannot agree with changing the meaning of unanimous resolution to something other than what it is intended for; but absolutely agree that there are parts of the act that should not require a unanimous resolution. Therefore, the voting methods should be changed accordingly to make it more practicable. At the end of the day, we want all new legislation to be practicable and to be workable and for it to be clear and unambiguous.
I will give you an example. If an owner wishes to install a shade sail to the structure due to the blinding sun, which we get here in the Top End, which prohibits the owner from enjoying the full utilisation and comfortable surrounds of their unit, they cannot do so under the present unanimous decisions regulation unless all owners agree. The principle of common law is that one person cannot hold back others from achieving a common goal.
The proposed scheme under Part 3.4 section 87(1) is very specific in that a letting agent is required to be a licensed real estate manager. However, the same section does not indicate a body corporate manager needs to hold the same relevant licence. While it is acknowledged that in accordance with the Agents Licensing Act, a body corporate manager is required to hold an Agents Representative Licence, this proposed act is not specifically targeted to body corporate managers, as such. If a corporation chooses to self-manage, then any person can act as a body corporate manager and receive whatever fee they think fit and appropriate at that time, as it does not state the body corporate manager has to hold the respective licence. The new draft scheme needs to clearly state the body corporate manager must be similarly qualified and hold a current real estate licence. We all know that the body corporate manager is the person in charge of the trust funds for large body corporate, and this is a major responsibility which cannot and should not be treated lightly.
We believe this draft scheme is very complex and somewhat ambiguous and, unfortunately, like the current act, is open to interpretation. As I said before, with new legislation - whilst I understand this is complex and has probably been difficult to construct - we must endeavour to get it as clear and unambiguous as possible. One area in particular we believe can be open to interpretation is clauses 15(2)(a) and 15(3)(c). These sections state that relevant schemes may be terminated if carried out by a unanimous resolution and, in addition, by 90% of the total interest entitlements. It could be argued that you cannot have a unanimous resolution and a 90% support of total entitlements for the termination of a body corporate at the same time ...
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, I just ask for clarification of this section. I am trying to find it.
Ms PURICK: Section 15(2)(a) and section 15(3)(c).
Mr Wood: I have 15, Termination by resolution. Page 13 of the bill?
Ms PURICK: I am not sure about the page.
Mr Wood: Madam Speaker, just a clarification. My clause 15 says Termination by resolution. Is that the section we are on?
Ms PURICK: They are the sections that I have had briefings on from the industry that they are concerned about.
Mr Wood: It does not match the numbers I have in the bill, that is the only thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you can raise that in the committee stage, member for Nelson.
Ms PURICK: Yes, in committee stage.
Mr Wood: I am just trying to follow the debate.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I will just clarify that the member opposite is referring to the draft bill; that is not actually in this bill before the House.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I would like to acknowledge these young people. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of the 1st Darwin Sea Scouts accompanied by Scout Leader ‘Curlew’ Mrs Alex Knowler, Scout Leader ‘Kestrel’, Mr Ross Champion, and Group Leader ‘Squid’, Mr Peter Zagorski. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Knight: Madam Speaker, the former member for Port Darwin’s son is also up there - Luca.
___________________
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
With respect to legal implications and subsequent cost involved for failing to comply, a concern is the required amount of time given for a body corporate to comply. The majority of penalties within this proposed act are imposed if the body corporate fails to comply with the regulations. As mentioned previously, the ability to obtain a unanimous resolution is quite difficult and, given that there is a legal requirement currently to provide all owners with 21 days written notice of the unanimous resolution, the ability to obtain this unanimous resolution in this time frame will be extremely difficult and almost impossible, given that the vast majority of owners often live interstate.
Another point which has been put to me from industry representations is in regard to the management modules. The introduction of similar management modules for both the Unit Titles Act and the current proposed scheme legislation is an advantage. However, it is difficult to comment due to the incompletion of the management modules for the proposed scheme. A question is: whether the developer is the right person to choose the management modules, given the fact that once the building is developed then the vast majority of developers have very little to do with that property in the future. Perhaps there should be parameters for the different types of body corporate and, based on those parameters, the management modules that best suit will be the management modules that the body corporate must comply with. The developer of a property is not going to know which one would best suit the body corporate for the future benefits of all parties involved.
A further concern with the introduction of this legislation is it is important that any changes which affect the current act will be changed accordingly, as mentioned previously. It is difficult to make any comment having not seen the relevant modules.
A further concern is: if an owner has a unit under the new proposed act, and also has a unit which is currently governed by the Unit Titles Act, then there can be some confusion as to processes between the two. This could cause problems and confusion with body corporate managers, possibly the letting agent, and also vendors. In addition, with the introduction of the new legislation, how are new owners expected to make decisions without an understanding of the act, and will they rely heavily on advice provided by the body corporate managers? Is it the role of a body corporate manager to assist them in their decision-making process, or will this be the responsibility of the scheme supervisor?
With respect to the unit boundaries, we believe it is vital to clearly outline exactly what is body corporate responsibility and what is not. In particular, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding when the pipework becomes the owners’ responsibility; and whether the utilities, such as telephone lines and so forth, are the responsibility of the body corporate or the owner. This needs clarification, and to be clearly stated in the proposed new legislation.
The Unit Titles Act has attempted to do this and, to some extent, has succeeded. However, we believe there still are some grey areas between insurance companies and their coverage, which has caused problems with determining the owner’s responsibility and the body corporate responsibilities. We recommend that consultation with the respective authorities when determining what the unit boundaries are, and so forth, be conducted to ensure that it is very clear for all parties concerned. It is important, I believe, that clarity of these definitions are sought from the industry to ensure that the legislation is workable.
With the introduction of the new legislation, I strongly suggest and recommend that there would be training sessions carried out by government, in association with industry, to ensure that relevant real estate companies who provide body corporate management services understand and become familiar with this new act and its relationship to the existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we do not oppose this legislation but, I believe, given the haste with which it, and the consultation papers, were pushed through at the end of last year over the Christmas period, which was not entirely fair, that the government and the agency which is responsible for this does consult extensively and widely with industry to ensure that the legislation, when it becomes law, is workable and there is no unintended, additional cost on the various stakeholders in the real estate industry.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this bill. Without doubt, it is a very complex bill and I have struggled to find my way through it. I was a little confused by what the member for Goyder was saying, because I could not follow some of the sections she was referring to. However, if she was referring to the draft bill, then I am not sure whether her concerns were covered by the bill we have in front of us, because this is obviously the bill that we have to debate tonight.
I went through it and thought if it is complex for me what is it like for other people, except those people in the industry? I would hope the government can actually bring out some fact sheets which are a combination of a more simplistic approach, that is, they are clear for people to understand, along with diagrams. I noticed the bill uses diagrams to describe basic schemes and layered schemes, and I would have thought something that could come out of this particular debate, when it is passed, is we have some fact sheets that the lay man or lay woman can understand.
I have a number of questions which I would like to deal with at the committee stage; they might be easier to look at it then. I tried to get in contact with various groups regarding what they thought about the changes. I have something from the web in relation to the Property Council of the NT which recognises the important contribution properly functioning titles legislation can play in urban renewal, and it has provided a submission to the Department of Justice on this proposed legislation. If enacted, the new legislation will make the Northern Territory the first jurisdiction to have legislation that provides scheme termination by less than unanimous agreement. I have some concerns about that.
The member for Goyder noted you would have to have 90% of unit holders agree before that scheme came into being. My impression from the member for Goyder was that some of the industries are looking for lower than that. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I might deal with that a little more now, then ask the questions when we get to that section.
My concerns about this new section where 90% of unit holders can decide if they would like the block of flats, or the condominiums or whatever they live, in to be demolished, they can. That is on the understanding that the original scheme said clearly if 90% of the people decided the buildings should be demolished, then that can happen. I understand these concepts of urban renewal, etcetera, but we have to be careful not to forget that a unit is not just a unit; in many cases, a unit is a home, and I think of the film The Castle. I am concerned that whilst it might be all right to write these things in a contract, 20 years down the track might be another thing. My understanding is the demolition of these units could not occur until 20 years had passed. I would like to see some protection for the people who did not agree, the 10% who did not agree, not because I am saying it cannot happen, especially if you have signed off on it, but perhaps there needs to be some provision which says the 10% who did not agree would be guaranteed to have a unit in the new development at similar costs and under similar arrangements.
I would not like to see one group of people say to another group of people: ‘We can simply destroy your home’, without some form of adequate compensation for those people who will lose their home. It is not just a legal matter. There is a more to it than that. There is a social matter in relation to someone having the power to basically say: ‘We will demolish your house’. That might be all right for governments. As is mentioned in the bill, governments have the power to compulsorily acquire land and they must do that on just terms. The just terms are, again, something out of the movie The Castle. I believe just terms should also apply if someone is required to give up their home for demolition for something which, some might say is very important, that is urban renewal, and some might say it is not the end of the world. There is an area where we need to make sure if it comes in, then it should be done on just terms. Minister, in your second reading you said there are only two places in the world that allow that. So we are moving into an area not many other countries have in their legislation. We need at least to travel in that area with a softly, softly approach.
The Property Council says while supporting the general intention of the bill, they have the following concerns with the draft legislation, and that is partly to do with what I just spoke about - the likely ineffectiveness of provisions for termination to facilitate urban renewal. They would prefer 75%; also, the lack of applicability or reforms to existing unit title schemes; and the onerous disclosure provisions which are likely to deter development. It is interesting when you get into this section on disclosure statements; I must admit I nearly fell over when the government was promoting this. I have been pushing a scheme for some time. If I had more than one question a day, I could have probably got to the question.
What has happened to the concept of sellers of ordinary houses and land having to provide information up-front before they sell their land? I have been pushing that for years and it seems to have come to a dead end at the moment. Yet, when I look in the Units Title Schemes Bill, here it is. They are requiring the seller to provide some details about the scheme to the buyer before the buyer signs on the dotted line; that is something I would support. Perhaps the same objections I get from a small element of the real estate industry - not the whole industry - is reflected in the statement by the Property Council that they believe there are onerous disclosure provisions which are likely to deter development.
I believe it is important when people buy into a unit complex that they know exactly what they are doing. There is also another section in here which says they also have to know what the ongoing costs will be; not just the normal day-to-day costs, but other management costs that may not be seen until after the unit is sold. I believe this legislation is trying to make sure those extra costs, which can be quite onerous, are known up-front by the person buying the unit.
I have some questions about the methods of voting, not so much because I do not understand what unanimous and those type of words mean, but there are some clauses, especially in section 79 which need more explanation. I am referring to clauses 79(7) and 79(8), and I put these forward as something the minister wants to respond to now, or if it goes to committee. Clause 79(7) says:
- A motion is passed by an ordinary resolution if:
- (a) both of the following conditions are satisfied:
- (i) this paragraph applies under the management module;
I understand that; and
- (ii) the contribution entitlements of the units for the votes counted in favour of the motion exceed the
contribution entitlements of the units for the votes counted against it; …
Hmm, not sure what that means. And further down under subsection (8) it says:
- A motion is passed by a special resolution if:
(a) at least two-thirds of the votes cast are counted in favour of the motion; and
(b) the contribution entitlements of the units for the votes counted against the motion do not exceed
25% of the contribution entitlements of all the units.
I would like more explanation of that.
I should say that I did get a briefing, but this is a fairly complex bill. Even though we did get a briefing, I cannot say that we covered every aspect of this bill. I would like that section to be given more explanation. I tried to understand what contribution entitlements meant, and that is probably the problem I have as well. It is not easy to understand.
Another area which I ask the minister to look at is section 146(q); it is in relation to the changes to the Planning Act. It talks about an amendment of section 51, Matters to be taken into account, and it says:
- For proposed subdivision of land on which a building is or will be situated - whether the building complies, or will comply, with any requirements
prescribed by regulation in relation to the building (including, for example, requirements about structural integrity and the fire safety of the building):
My concern is that I would have thought that is a role of the Building Board, not the role of the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority basically just says: we approve this building subject to it being passed by a building inspector. We seem now to have moved some of the responsibility of physically seeing whether the building has structural integrity or has suitable fire safety onto the Planning Authority. I am asking the minister why we shifted that responsibility to them when we already have a department which has that job. We have the fire department and the Building Board, so why not just give it a tick instead of asking the Development Consent Authority to deal with that?
I have a broad question. We have two acts now. We are going to have the Unit Title Schemes Act and the Unit Titles Act. Some people will be under one and some under the other. I would like to know what the mechanics are. If I own a block of units and they have a scheme under the Unit Titles Act, how difficult is it for me to get myself out of that scheme and put myself in the new scheme, which I might think is a better scheme to be in than the old scheme? What is the requirement if I would like to do that?
The other question is: can someone apply for a scheme under the existing Unit Titles Act or, once this act comes into being, the other unit titles scheme will not take any new applications? So, with time, it will fade away – it will probably be a fair time too. I would have thought if the government wanted to encourage the concept of only having one act covering unit titles it would be working out an easier mechanism to get people who were in the old scheme to shift into the new scheme. I hope that makes sense. There are some general questions. I was going to leave some of them to the committee stage, but you may be able to answer those in the meantime.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very interested in this legislation. I agree with both the members for Goyder and Nelson that this legislation is confusing in the extreme.
The people I have talked to within the real estate industry say to me things like: ‘We support this legislation in principle and we support the concept that the government is trying to promote; that they want a scheme which is better for the consumer, the developer and for the body corporate manager’. Who could possibly disagree with such intention? However, after that, there is a big ‘but’. The ‘but’ is, first, this legislation should have been incorporated into the current Unit Titles Act. The reason it was not, I am informed, is because it was too difficult. It may well be too difficult for the legislators, but spare a thought for the poor people who have to try, somehow or other, to interpret definitions within this act.
The member for Nelson talked about average punters who have to understand this. It needs to be borne in mind that not all bodies corporate and body corporate managers are professionals; quite often you will find a small unit development being self-managed and the unit owners simply decide: ‘We do not want to get a professional. We have a small enough block of units, we all get on quite well; let us just manage our own block of units’. That is a fair thing and is something that should be encouraged in our society. We do not want to confuse things too much.
Yesterday, during the opposition’s business day, I promoted a motion about a regulation relief advisory committee. I went through that and highlighted a range of areas within government legislation that conflict and create confusion, add cost to businesses, and the like. It is great to see during this debate we have the Minister for Business here, because he was telling us yesterday that government is always on the lookout for legislation and regulations that create confusion, that are unnecessary, and the government is keen to clear the way and simplify things as much as possible. Here we are, the very next day, debating a bill that flies in the face of everything the minister said, because there is nothing, practically, in this bill that does not create confusion.
There is major conflict between this proposed Unit Title Schemes Bill and the existing Unit Titles Act. The member for Goyder raised a number of areas of conflict. The member for Nelson raised a number of areas that seemed to conflict with one another between the two acts, and also mentioned a range of areas that are just plain confusing.
It is amazing that the government has the gall to come in here and run this sort of line that they are trying to make things better; that they are trying to help consumers, developers, and body corporate managers, but the government is not prepared to do the hard work and actually combine the act and reform that particular act into something that is workable for everybody. Instead, they come in with a hotchpotch of ideas, bits of sticky tape and glue, and crazy ideas and say: ‘This is far easier for us. We will do it this way’. Pity the poor bloke out there on the street who has to somehow interpret this nonsense we have put together in this place. That is exactly what it is. There is a range of things in here that are very difficult to understand. It is not simple legislation at all. In many cases it is impossible to understand and will require long periods in court rooms to actually interpret the meaning of some of the definitions in clauses in the act.
The Unit Titles Act and this bill, at times, are completely contradictory. I have to ask the question: will there be any changes to the Unit Titles Act to bring it in line with this scheme? Will there be any assistance given to operators, body corporate managers, developers, to tenants and owners of units and houses by government, such as information sessions? Will the supervisor for the act be the same as the supervisor for the scheme? Will the supervisor for either the act or the scheme be out there consulting and available to the public and to people who have an interest in this area? Will there be seminars put on once this legislation is passed for bodies corporate and body corporate managers?
The member for Goyder mentioned problems in areas such as: what is a unanimous resolution? Under this scheme a unanimous resolution is deemed to be a resolution that some people agree on and, as long as no one fails to respond, it is considered unanimous. Under the Unit Titles Act, that is not the case at all. Unanimous is unanimous, you require agreement from every single person. Both scenarios have hairs all over them. The idea there is 90% support creates some problems too, if you are in a unit block with three units and they are a self-managing body corporate, basically, you are saying you need 100% support.
Some of the penalties involved for failing to comply seem to be a bit harsh given the time frames by which bodies corporate have to respond; 21 days written notice of a unanimous resolution. In many cases the government knows, we know, the owners live interstate. The owners can be quite difficult to track down. I believe trying to penalise bodies corporate for their failure to contact one of the members is plain wrong.
Like the member for Nelson, I will have many questions during the committee stage of this bill. I will not go into them all right now; I will save them for when we are in the committee stage.
One thing I do want to make totally clear is my opposition to this bill and the way it has been put together. The way I look at it, it is in complete conflict, it creates confusion and does nothing to ease the regulatory burden that businesses and individuals face in our community. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that just yesterday we had this debate about regulation relief. I saw the minister get up yesterday and carry on about what the government is doing to reduce the regulatory burden, to clear the roadblocks. Yet here we are, the very next day discussing a bill that, for most people, will be impossible to understand. It is very difficult, almost impossible to comply with, it creates costs to themselves, their bodies corporate, to the organisations they work for, needless costs, and can land them in hot water if they do not comply.
It is a sad thing that the government is not prepared to do the leg work; they say it is too difficult to combine those two acts. That is the point of being legislators; we do the hard work. The minister yesterday talked about their courage to make the tough decisions. Where was the courage in making a tough decision here? They completely failed; they went to water. Let us do the simple thing and, when I say the simple thing, it is the simple thing for the government, not the simple thing for the people out there, people in the industry, all those people who have to interpret and work with this legislation. In fact, it is very difficult for them, extraordinarily confusing, but it is a simple thing for government.
It is very disappointing that these guys seem to take their jobs as being PR people for the Labor Party. Nothing but voices that speak up and tell the rest of the Territory how good they are, what a wonderful job they are doing, when the reality is they are not prepared to do the hard work. They are not prepared to take the drafters of this legislation on and say: ‘Get your act together! We want something that is robust, something that can take us into the future, something that people out there can understand. Go back to the drawing board. Show us how we can pull these two acts together, take away the confusion, do what is necessary to make it right for the people out there who have to operate under this act’. No, they do not do that; they take the easy option for themselves.
Then they will stand up and say: ‘But everyone said they agreed with this legislation’. Well, everyone says they agree with it in principle. They can understand the motivation behind it. We want to do better for consumers, for developers and for body corporate managers. No one can disagree with that, that is a great goal and something we all want to do. Ultimately, that is the failure of this legislation - It does not do any good for the consumer. It does a great deal of damage to the consumer and the developers who have to determine how this works. A developer is supposed to put in place the management model for a particular complex. Quite often the developer will just sell the complex and go away, but the developer is expected to interpret what the owners of that complex will want. To me, that is not right, that is an unfair burden to put on developers and it takes away some of the rights of the owners. The owners should be able to determine for themselves the best method of managing the property.
I will leave it there, Madam Speaker. I highlight again that I think this is cumbersome, it is burdensome, it is confusing, it is muddled - a bit like those who sit opposite - and it is an easy option for members of the government. It does nothing at all to enhance the idea that we want to reduce regulation, that we want to make things simpler, and we want to grease the skids for developers, body corporate managers and those people who are undertaking commercial activity.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. The earth is not flat. The earth is round and likewise what is evolving within the business world, particularly the property world, is quite complex. We only have to look at what is evolving here and what is planned for the development at the waterfront. There are quite different businesses which will be adjacent to leisure areas and residential areas; all these things are juxtaposed, they are in together, and this is typical of modern developments - they are quite complex. What this bill seeks to do is address the complexities, particularly in relation to staged developments.
I listened with great care to what the member for Fong Lim had to say, and he is pointing to those complexities within the bill. He is saying the man in the street cannot understand them but, with all respect to the member for Fong Lim, the types of people who undertake these types of developments are not really the man in the street. These developments, particularly the more complex ones, require a lot of money …
Mr Tollner: What about the self-managed body corporate?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … a lot of planning and a lot of expertise.
Mr Tollner: This does not just apply to them.
Dr BURNS: Please let me continue, member for Fong Lim. So, it is not a plateau. There are quite complex inter-relationships in there and what this bill seeks to do is address those inter-relationships. I know from when I was Attorney-General, there has been much consultation with industry on this particular issue. The member for Fong Lim will get his opportunities, as will the member for Nelson, to investigate and interrogate some of the complexities associated with this bill. No one is pretending this is not a complex bill, it is. But, member for Fong Lim, I understand you did not seek a briefing on this issue; so, you come in here without seeking a briefing. When I was Attorney-General I sought a number of briefings on this particular issue because it is a complex issue and, although I have four degrees, I am never afraid to ask a question.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification for the minister, I have received several briefings on this scheme.
Dr BURNS: But not from any officer at Department of Justice.
Mr Tollner: Oh, no.
Dr BURNS: Well, there you go. So you come in here and have a go at those officers who drafted this legislation, and we will have to go to Hansard to see what you have said. You have implied they have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of this; and where are their political masters? I believe the inference was that we should have just stepped in and said: ‘No, that is not good enough. Go back to the drawing board; come back when everyone is satisfied’. It is good you have a range of views, which we have also, but we have also asked those with legal qualifications, legal backgrounds, those with experience in drafting legislation, and quite vast experience - they are the people giving us advice.
I do not think it would have hurt you, member for Fong Lim, to seek a briefing to ask the questions that have been raised with you by various members of the community - those involved in strata titles, real estate, property development or property management - and put those questions yourself at a briefing. Basically, you did not avail yourself of that. You have come straight into this parliament and have made those inferences. It is your right as a parliamentarian to do that. No doubt, we will get into the committee stages and you will have your turn to ask those questions, and the minister will rightly advise you.
However, it is complex. It builds on reforms put in place through the Land Title and Related Legislation Amendment Bill last year. The 2008 reforms dealt with many of the legacy issues in the original statutes and incorporated significant modernisation of our land title and related arrangements.
We have listened to the views of business and the community and have made key improvements which have been incorporated into this bill, and we believe those improvements will bear out that these improvements are necessary. There is a more flexible, simpler, and targeted approach to match developer and community needs and demands, and this is the approach that is being taken. The reforms will provide a balanced approach providing simplicity, certainty and flexibility. They respond to the real-life situations that arise where there are stages and layers of ownership in subdivision proposals, as we have at the waterfront, and increasingly in Darwin and in the rest of Australia, and complex interrelationships and ownership of these stages and layers. It is not a flat earth. There are many layers to it, and that is what this bill seeks to address.
We are providing a flexible, operating framework for unit title developments. The reforms will make it possible to complete a staged development within the umbrella of a scheme statement, without the developer being forced to commit to a strict timetable, plans or specification for future stages prior to development approval. The member for Fong Lim talked about red tape and all the rest of it. Here is something that government is putting into statute to provide flexibility for developers - and he is canning it, saying it is a straightjacket. Well, it is not a straightjacket; this is a flexible approach. This is a government that is attuned to business.
I advise the member for Fong Lim to get a contemporary briefing on this, because there are many views. I have listened to them within that particular sector, but the one prevailing view that was put to me by a number of people as we developed this legislation, when I was Attorney-General, was this is a very complex undertaking; everyone agrees on that. We are not shying away from that.
These reforms allow for different layers of unit development within a parent scheme, without having to select and designate each layer as a specific type of unit titles scheme, and being unable to alter this later - once again, flexibility. This flexibility is achieved while also protecting the interests of prospective purchasers through appropriate vendor disclosure provisions. The bill caters for these ownership arrangements and amends current provisions which have proved to be overly complex and cumbersome in the evolving and dynamic, modern development market workplace. That is a view that has been put to me strongly, and I am sure to other members here, by developers.
The bill also improves the arrangements for common property such as parks, equipment and sporting facilities to be covered more simply and effectively. As the Attorney-General has noted, it also allows for individual parcels to split easily into units for particular purposes; for example, into residential apartments.
We have listened and we are taking the action needed to achieve improvements and give effect to the input we have received. Certainty, for existing unit owners, developers and corporations is clearly vitally important in introducing these improvements. To ensure this is the case, the ongoing governance of existing and current unit developments and corporations will be provided for through the reformed Unit Titles Act which will remain in operation - which is in answer to one of the questions the member for Fong Lim asked.
To give further flexibility, the option to continue using the existing act, or the proposed new Unit Title Schemes Act, will be available to project developers during a transitional period. Once again, flexibility. The flexibility to be provided will also extend to the staging of developments and the ability to deal with each stage independently, if desired. This will assist developers and improve the outcomes for purchasers. The arrangements for disclosure statements are also to be reformed and improved. These reforms provide sensible flexibility to the Development Consent Authority in approving subdivisions in a staged manner, consistent with the physical development of projects and sites. They also allow greater alignments with existing development of major landholdings and the progressive development of those holdings. Formal lodgement of subdivision documents with the Registrar-General will allow for the settling of by-law and related management arrangements, including exclusive use by-laws for relevant projects and associated bodies corporate.
The flexibility allowed for in the reforms will provide for more effective management of sales off-the-plan, something I would think would be welcomed by the development community, because that is the way things are done currently. That is actually what banks are insisting on with modern developments. They want to see evidence of sales off-the-plan so anything that can facilitate sales off-the-plan is going to be good for business. This will assist developers to progress with important projects, and improve certainty and clarity for purchasers as well. It is very important for off-the-plan purchasers to know what they are buying and that they receive what they expect; that is why the disclosure statements are there.
The arrangements for the termination of Unit Title Schemes are also important. As the Attorney-General noted in her second reading speech, there are at present few, if any, options for the closure and termination of Unit Title Schemes under the current statutes. This is another important element, because I know a number of prospective developments have been halted under the current scheme because, out of 100 unit title holders, you might get one holding out, and it stops everyone else from moving forward with the development that everyone wants. What we need to have is a reform that deals with this requirement as well. They provide sensible flexibility and lay out appropriate provisions for scheme termination and dispute resolution when required.
The provisions recognise fully the rights and responsibilities of individual lot holders, while allowing scheme terminations to proceed if an overwhelming majority of owners, 90% or more, wish to take such action, providing that the scheme is more than 20 years old. So there is a maturity provision, if you like, within these termination arrangements.
Better allocation of common property where it is relevant, for car parking and other requirements has been raised and has been incorporated in the bill. I know the former member for Greatorex, if he was here, would love it, because he introduced a bill into this parliament on the basis that someone stole his parking lot at his unit, and he did not like that at all. We must send him a copy of this bill and my speech recognising his contribution in the light of this legislation.
Allowing the Northern Territory Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in relation to the termination and amalgamation of subdivision schemes is also a good move and will assist in ensuring fairness and clarity.
The provision for the appointment of a Statutory Unit Titles Scheme Supervisor, within the administering agency, will allow advice and assistance in relation to the application of the provision. Member for Fong Lim, this is something which will give support to those who have questions, and expert support. This will help developers and purchasers, especially when novel or non-standard approaches are being explored and proposed. So, here we are supporting innovation – we are cutting red tape, increasing flexibility and supporting innovation. This is a fantastic bill, and I support it fully.
As honourable members will note, the bill, which incorporates the valuable input and responses received from developers in the community, has been drafted to achieve flexibility, simplicity and certainty, while creating the capacity to respond to market changes and developments.
Madam Speaker, we have listened and we are responding with suitable, sensible, relevant reforms which will underpin the continued rapid and orderly development of the Territory, particularly in relation to the larger scale and long-term staged development. This not only has a positive impact for developers, this has a positive impact for our economy.
These larger scale developments, like the waterfront, need this type of legislation to proceed in this way and have the complex, staged developments that has been proposed for them. The waterfront is one development. It is a very important development and from memory it is over 15 years, a considerable time. This provides that type of development flexibility to proceed. It is important for us to continue to listen to further input on these matters, and take additional valuable input into account.
I am pleased to support the Unit Titles Scheme and commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward these important reforms, whilst also acknowledging other members. The member for Nelson and the member for Fong Lim have committee stage questions and that is quite reasonable given the complexity of what we are attempting here. In other words, we have a new scheme and we are making provisions for continuation of the old scheme, plus some extra provisions about terminating unit title schemes. It is complex but I believe it is the right way forward, the necessary way forward and makes our legislation contemporary. Madam Speaker, I support this bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge that the member for Goyder said that the opposition would, on the whole, be supporting the legislation, which accords with the indication we had from the Opposition Leader of Business. I know that is in direct contrast to the comments made by the member for Fong Lim, but we are used to getting mixed signals from the members opposite.
I sincerely thank the member for Nelson for his contribution and for his questions, and for genuinely trying to engage in what we all admit and recognise is very complex law, but is necessary in providing for the opportunity for those large, multilayered and multifaceted developments which are very much becoming the contemporary style of development, not just in the Territory, but across the nation and the world.
Our existing Unit Titles Act was not able to accommodate the complexity and the nature of the new developments we see coming through. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, after many years - this has been on the books since 1 March 2001 when the then Attorney-General, Denis Burke, remarked in a closing debate on building lot bills that this was the first step in reforming the laws relating to group titles - well, here we are in 2009, and we have this legislation before us. Whilst the member for Goyder would say that this has been rushed, some of us who know the history of this legislation know it has been an arduous and long path to reach the point where we actually had a comprehensive Unit Titles Scheme Bill to introduce at the last sittings, and seek to pass it at these sittings.
There have been significant discussion drafts going out as early as 2001. They have evolved over time and I am pleased to report to the House that the evolution has centred on trying to adopt better contemporary practice, protection for consumers purchasing off-the-plan, which is a matter the member for Nelson quite appropriately raised, but also providing for the workability the industry is seeking.
This legislation was not approved by Cabinet until I could absolutely guarantee support of both the Property Council and the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, and we have that support in writing. So for the member for Fong Lim to try to parade this as something that would be a burden on the property industry shows he is completely out of touch with their position in this regard.
The member for Goyder was somewhat confused. The issues and concerns she raised in her contribution went to the draft bill that were actually picked up by the government, taken on board in terms of listening to industry so the bill we have before us has captured the concerns of industry raised at the time, the issues the member for Goyder put on the public record tonight, and they are contained in this contemporary legislation we have before us.
Yes, it is extremely complex because developments of this nature are extremely complex and when you need to capture the interest of the consumer, and equally capture the needs of the developers and, also how bodies corporate will function as well, by its nature it is required to be complex because these are all very complex matters.
During my second reading speech I outlined the history of the unit titles developments and legislative changes that occurred as a result of the changing nature of these types of developments in the Territory. We know that, currently, the legislation presents both challenges and complexities for developers, but we believe there is room for reducing the complexity, for improving the consumer protection, and for reducing the regulatory burden which is why we have the Unit Titles Scheme Bill before today. Developers of new major developments actually sought changes to have Northern Territory legislation provide for similar options which are available in other jurisdictions, and that is what this legislation today captures.
The extensive consultation, as I said, really started in 2001 and changed significantly after the Labor government came to power. Further rounds of consultations commenced in 2005 with the establishment of the Property and Commercial Law Task Force by the then Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Peter Toyne. The task force comprised representatives from both the conveyancing professions and the various occupations; it provided a report to government with its recommendations and this bill, together with the Land Title and Related Legislation Amendment Act 2008 genuinely implements the recommendations of that task force. So, it has been evolved from the task force that represents the industry with the expertise of the property and commercial law task force at the heart of it.
Further targeted consultation occurred during the development of the bill. We consulted with small groups of lawyers identified as having particular expertise and practical experience in unit titles issues, and they also provided input into this bill. We then released the draft bill in November 2008, not at Christmas; some of us actually work in November. Seminars were held - so it was not released and ‘let us just hide and pretend it is not out there’ - in both Darwin and Alice Springs for the public and also for the various professional and occupational groups which followed the release of the draft bill. The groups engaged included real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers, surveyors and body corporate managers.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the government listened, we responded, we made changes to the discussion draft of the bill and that is why we have the bill before us in the Chamber today, which we believe provides a new way for creating unit titles, and a contemporary way to meet the needs of both consumers and developers. It provides the same conceptual legal and operational basis for all unit title developments which replaces the complex red tape, if you like, but it replaces the multitude of processes that currently exist for the various unit title developments. There is clearly a reduction of red tape contained within this, acknowledging its complex legislation.
The new single scheme replaces the four methods that currently exist. The scheme addresses the concerns, as I said, of the consumers and it is critically important to this government as well as the developers so we can encourage the developments which provide housing options for Territorians. The scheme fundamentally responds to the need for reform in this area and, as I said, the reforms started in March 2001 and here we are today.
So when a developer is selling land off-the-plan, the scheme provides for appropriate disclosure of information; that is selling units prior to the time when the title for the unit is created. A developer will be guided by general principles about how, and the period when, they have control of a new body corporate, they enter into contracts, body corporate managers, letting agents and service contractors.
The scheme enables by-laws to be made, including by-law offences which can be enforced by the body corporate. It provides for exclusive use by-laws. It also commits current land title developments to opt into the new legislation. So you can opt into this and some developers, we have been advised, intend to do this for the immediate benefits of those exclusive use by-laws and the certainty of arrangements concerning body corporate managers, letting agents and service contractors which this bill provides.
The act will commence on such a day or days as determined by the Administrator, but what the government intends to do is to make a committee stage amendment to ensure the commencement of the legislation is clear, and to allow for a staged commencement.
Consultation is continuing with stakeholders as the regulations necessary for the operation of the legislation are developed. That is critical. Draft regulations relating to land titles, management modules, and land development are available from the Department of Justice. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is also preparing regulations which will govern the planning issues. Following the enactment and completion of the regulations, question and answer guides on aspects of the legislation will be available, and also seminars will be provided to industry groups. So, the fact sheets requested by the member from Nelson are being developed and will be available. The government is ensuring we go to the full extent required to provide simple, accurate advice to consumers, developers, real estate agents, and conveyancers. There are many people involved in this sector.
Madam Speaker, there are significant and different features of this bill that the former Attorney-General who had carriage of this legislation for a long time - I want to go on record to thank him for all the effort he put into this - he met with industry groups, and I have picked it up at the end of what has been a very lengthy process. The member for Johnston explained key features of the bill, and we will be going into committee stage. I understand the concerns of the member for Nelson with the new section regarding the 90% of unit holders making decisions, but we put some safety aspects in there for protection. Industry wanted it to apply at a far lower percentage and without the safety mechanisms we put in there to protect the right of the consumer. Whilst industry will say we have not gone far enough, I recognise the concerns of the member for Nelson regarding how far you go. However, we did need to provide a mechanism that really does deal with the impasses that occur from time to time. Ultimately, as you heard the Minister for Business say, there are legal avenues through the Supreme Court as well.
We believe we have the checks and balances in there and we paid very close attention to providing the checks and balances. We all want to king of our particular castle, and there are inherent rights that reside in that aspect. The amendments are only technical in their nature, but it does afford the opportunity for members to ask some quite specific questions regarding the act. However, regarding the Unit Titles Act, anyone covered by that act currently can stay, or they transfer into coverage of this one. Those unit developments that already have planning approval can remain under the old Units Titles Act, but new developments would come in under this new act. That is the transition path the government has decided upon.
If people decide to stay under the old Unit Titles Act they will have operation of both the acts applying in the Territory. We felt that was the fairest way to approach the issue of the existing rights and operations people have. There are plenty of incentives in this act for people who want to transfer over if that is the path they choose to go down. We think we will see - as we have had some indications from industry - some taking the opportunities which exist in this act. It will provide certainty going forward into the future in unit developments and provide not just the critical issues of governance and disclosure of what people are really purchasing into, but also government’s arrangements for bodies corporate and how they operate. It will also provide the flexibility the development community has been seeking in the different strata titles that exist.
It is contemporary legislation. It is complex by nature because we are dealing in a complex area of property law here. That being said, I believe the government has genuinely gone through a highly consultative process to produce legislation which industry says it accepts, and also enshrines far more contemporary practice and better protection for consumers than currently exists in the Territory.
I sincerely thank the officers in Justice and in DPI in the years of work it has taken to get to this stage, and there are also many professionals out there who have had input.
Madam Speaker, when we go into the committee stage I will answer questions specifically.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Unit Title Schemes Bill 2009 (Serial 35), together with schedule of amendments No 10 circulated by the Minister for Planning and Lands.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, would it be more sensible for me to put forward those clauses I wish to address now, so you know where I am going?
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: For your information, I am looking at clause 15, clause 45, clause 79, clause 111 and clause 146(q).
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, for assistance I would propose given that the member for Nelson has indicated clause 15, we could move to clause 10 and I could move my amendment. If that proceeds, we could then move to specific clauses.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 10.1: clause 2(1) omit ‘Part’ and substitute ‘Act’. The amendment corrects a technical problem with clause 2, the commencement clause in the legislation. As presently worded, it is likely that all of the provisions of the legislation, other than Part 2 and clauses 142, 147, 149, 152, 163, 166 to 168, and 174 will commence operation on assent. This amendment ensures that all of the provisions other than sections 142, 147, 149, 152, 163, 166 to 168, and 174 commence on the day or days fixed in accordance with a commencement notice published in the Northern Territory Government Gazette.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 10.2: clause 5, after heading insert the words ‘In this Act:’ at the beginning of clause 5. The amendment is a technical amendment that makes it clear that the definitions in the clause are definitions to be used for the act as a whole.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: It refers to clause 109. It is not a clause that either of the parties has an issue with, is my understanding, so I could move it or we could wait.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson is nodding so I think we can move.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 10.3: clause 109, definition commencement, omit ‘this Part’ and substitute ‘section 109’. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the different provisions in Part 4.3 to be commenced on separate days. As presently drafted this would be difficult because the term ‘commencement’ is defined by reference to commencement of the part as a whole. Commencement of the part as a whole only takes place when all of the provisions have commenced.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I could do the last technical amendment and we could go on with specific answers on specific clauses, if that is the wish of the committee.
Madam CHAIR: That is a good plan, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 10.4: clause 135 - proposed section 54A(2) of the Land Titles Act after ‘section 65(2) insert ‘of the Unit Title Schemes Act’. This makes it clear that the reference in the Land Titles Act whose section 65(2) is a reference to the provision in the Unit Title Schemes Act rather than to section 65(2) of the Land Title Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you had some questions.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my questions are in relation to section 15(b)(ii) and 15(b)(iii). In relation to 15(b)(ii) ‘the scheme has existed for at least 20 years after the commencement of this Act;’. I am probably jumping to another section of the act, but the section of the act is section 111 where you talk about transition from the exiting Unit Titles Act to the Unit Titles Scheme Act. If you move from the old act to the new act, where does the 20 years start - from when?
Ms LAWRIE: Literally as it says: ‘from the commencement of this act’.
Mr WOOD: So for some units or some blocks of flats which have been in existence for 20 years under the old act, they cannot use that 20-year term to fit into this scheme here?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right. It is another 20 years.
Mr WOOD: In relation to subsection 15(b)(iii), which allows units to be demolished and the land used for something else. Take the case of a family or older people; say there are 100 units, some 90% of the people say yes to demolition and there might be 10 units left over with people in them who are in their 70s or 80s, and all of a sudden the younger people in the area think these flats are too out-of-date, they are not modern, and want them pulled down. What protection is there for those people who do not want to go anywhere else? They have lived there a good part of their lives. They might be close to the shops, and they are paying the money they can afford for the units they are living in. What happens to those people? Are they just simply tossed out and told to go and find another place to live, or is there some protection for those people?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I am advised the management modules will provide for just terms.
Mr WOOD: Then I probably have to work back the system and say: how are those management modules being agreed upon? I have to flick over to section 94. Will there be a protection in the setting up of those modules? Does it mean the modules could be put together in such a way that they did not have that protection built in them? Do these modules require a vote on them, or are they just done by the owner of the land? If that protection is not within the management module, then you still do not have any protection for those people who might lose their homes. How do we make sure those protections you are talking about are in the management module?
Ms LAWRIE: The management modules, I am advised, will be regulations. Those regulations for the management modules will go out as drafts to industry and consumers alike, just as we did with the consultation for the legislation. They will be created with contemporary best practice by the Department of Justice; put out as drafts; we will seek comment on them. It will be a requirement for me, as the minister with carriage, to give ultimate approval to the management modules. I am advised by Justice that it is definitely an ambition that what goes out as drafts will ensure the management modules provide for just terms.
Mr WOOD: Am I right in my belief that although you can set up some regulations in regard to management modules, a person can apply to make their own specific management module? Am I right, or do they have to be prescriptive according to the regulations?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised an individual can make a management module, but the Statutory Supervisor would have to give their approval to it.
Mr WOOD: The Statutory Supervisor is who?
Ms LAWRIE: A senior officer of the Department of Justice.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to the management modules, why is the developer the best person to choose the management module, given the fact that once a building is completed and sold off, the vast majority of developers have little, if anything, to do with that property in the future?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, I am advised that the regulations provide for the management modules so, for example, if it is for a development of four units, then the management modules designed for four units would apply.
Mr TOLLNER: So, what you are saying is that the developer does not choose the management module? Is that correct?
Ms LAWRIE: Correct.
Mr WOOD: Could I move back to clause 45 which is the Disclosure Statement? As I said, minister, I am very interested in seeing this in legislation, but I hope it continues in a broader form. There was one area there …
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, member for Nelson, just a point of clarification. Are we still going to go back to deal with clause 15?
Mr WOOD: No, sorry, I have finished with clause 15.
Ms LAWRIE: To keep track, I want to mark them off as we go, if that is all right.
Mr WOOD: That is okay.
Ms LAWRIE: So, clause 45?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I move onto clause 45 in relation to disclosure statements. In your second reading in relation to this, you said:
- The bill provides that a developer must lodge with the Registrar-General for registration a disclosure document that contains an estimate of any contributions that are likely to be imposed by the body corporate after the body corporate comes into existence. In providing this information it is not expected the developer will provide an estimate that turns out to be a precise figure. It is acknowledged that factors may change to affect outcomes. However, it is expected that a developer could show that the estimates had some logical basis when they were made.
That is the clause in here which gives some protection to costs that come afterwards. Is there anything in there that says if that figure is nowhere near what it should be - if someone deliberately said the cost is $100, but it is $1 - the developer has disclosed as required by the Registrar-General, but he has underestimated, perhaps, on purpose. Is there any penalty for that occurring?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that in that situation the purchaser has the right to cancel the contract.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. I would like to go on to clause 79 which is Method of voting; just a point of clarification. Clause 79(4) says:
- A motion is passed by unanimous resolution if the number of votes counted in favour of the motion is equal to the total number of units.
If one person owned five units, do they get five votes? Is that how it works?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Why is it written that way? Why is it not a motion is passed by unanimous resolution if the number of votes counted is the maximum number of votes? Why is it put in this phraseology in favour of the motion as equal to the total number of the units?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that was the drafting advice we have received.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask on what grounds the drafting advice was given? It is an explanation that is about an explanation.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I guess it gets down to the debates we normally have in here about the way Parliamentary Counsel decides what is the best drafting form to provide for the most certainty and clarity of the description. In this case, the issue of unanimous resolution, they are really meaning a vote where there is 100% voting support for all units.
Mr WOOD: I understand what you are saying. I just wondered if you could ring up the drafter and ask why it has that been put in such a manner. However, I will move on.
The issue I raised earlier in the debate was that of clause 79(7) in relation to an ordinary resolution. In clause 79(7)(a)(ii) it says:
- the contribution entitlements of the units for the votes counted in favour of the motion exceed the contribution entitlements of the units for the votes counted against it …
What are the contribution entitlements? I tried to understand it from previously in the act. What does that have to do with an ordinary resolution?
Ms LAWRIE: The contribution entitlements represent the share of the running costs paid by the owner. It is designed to protect the rights of people who are paying the most and who have the most invested.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify that: if you are contributing more, you get more votes? Is that how it works?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, that is a fair description.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask another, maybe, silly question? How do they work out how many votes you get? Does that come under something like a good management module, or is there a formula for working that out?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that sections 39(3), 39(4), 39(5)(a) and 39(5)(b) sets it out.
Mr WOOD: No wonder I could not understand it, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: I remind you, member for Nelson, we are going to do fact sheets for people.
Mr WOOD: I think we will need them. I remember reading section 2 on entitlement, a unit entitlement mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) must be a whole number other than nought. I would challenge the idea that nought is a number.
Ms LAWRIE: That is why it has to be ‘other than’.
Mr WOOD: You do not have anything yet. When you get nought runs, you have not scored any. But anyway, that is I suppose a drafting …
Ms LAWRIE: That is what we have ‘other than’.
Mr WOOD: I will look forward to some fact sheets on some of these. People who may be in the business, fair enough, but for someone who is not particularly confident with some of this legislation - in my case, when people come to see me about this, I certainly would welcome some material that explains this is in layman’s language so we can help people who are battling with it.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, just further to that. I said fact sheets in my reply, but also specific training will be held and seminars.
Mr WOOD: I will come for the training.
Mr TOLLNER: I will just backtrack. I will get back to where we are now; but can you tell me exactly why we do not have one Unit Title Act; why we now have to have two?
Ms LAWRIE: The advice I have received is that it is to try to capture the contemporary practice contained in this legislation. The old overly-regulated legislation would have made the legislation, on the whole, far more complicated. The Unit Titles Act has four different schemes running through it, and this is one scheme legislation.
Mr TOLLNER: Surely, if you have that number of schemes running through the existing act, it would not have been difficult to add another scheme and apply many of the same definitions and descriptions. For instance, in this bill there is the ability for resolutions without dissent, where as in the Unit Titles Act, I believe it just refers to unanimous resolution. There are management module descriptions that tend to be contrary to what is in the Unit Titles Act.
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, you are reading from the draft bill, which is different to the bill before us. All of those definitions have been picked up and been made similar in the two bills. You are going off the draft bill which is different to this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Correct me if I am wrong, in this bill it talks about resolutions without dissent. Is there a similar definition in the Unit Titles Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I turn to clause 165, which may help you. Clause 165 amends the Unit Titles Act to put in the same methods of voting as exist in the Unit Titles Schemes Bill before us.
Mr TOLLNER: So the Unit Titles Act reflects this?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Mr TOLLNER: So we are now amending the Unit Titles Act with this legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: That is what this clause does.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, that satisfies me in that regard. What about other areas of conflict that arise that mean you could not incorporate the two into the one act? Where are those areas?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that all the areas you may be referring to, that were identified by the industry, were incorporated into this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: That was not actually my question. My question was: what areas are in conflict between the two acts that means the two acts could not have been incorporated into the one?
Ms LAWRIE: It is in planning stages for example; it is around the disclosure provisions that sit in this act that do not sit in the old act. Anyone who has been involved in the development of this act and understands the contemporary practice contained in this act versus the old Unit Titles Act would be fully aware of a range of differences. In all sincerity, I am happy for you to get a briefing from the officers of the Department of Justice who can take you through the differences between the Unit Titles Act and the Unit Titles Scheme bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to this sort of thing. I am not exactly familiar with contemporary legislation or the old legislation. All I am asking you, as the minister, is if you can highlight to me just some areas where there is required to be difference that could not be incorporated in a single act? Just a few.
Ms LAWRIE: I gave you two examples in my previous response.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry. Start again. Which two examples were they?
Ms LAWRIE: I gave you examples of the relationship with the Planning Act. I also gave you …
Mr TOLLNER: All right, stop there.
Ms LAWRIE: I also gave you the example of the disclosure requirements in purchasing off-the-plan.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. In relation to the disclosure requirements purchasing off-the-plan – what does that mean? Where is the difference in the two acts; and why do they have to be different?
Ms LAWRIE: As stated in the second reading speech, as well as the contribution by the member for Johnston, as the member for Nelson would know, there are no disclosures in the current act and no ability to make such disclosures retrospectively in a current act. We have those disclosure provisions in this new act which is one part of the many changes that we are making in terms of unit titles in this bill.
Mr TOLLNER: Why couldn’t the old act be reformed to reflect that?
Ms LAWRIE: I just explained about retrospectivity.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, what was that? You can make retrospective legislation?
Ms LAWRIE: I just explained about the requirement to make aspects retrospective in the last act and there is – it is something Cabinet ministers come up against all the time - retrospectivity is not something you would apply to existing law unless it is unavoidable. It goes to issues such as fairness; people created developments under the existing Unit Titles Act to meet the requirements of that act. This act has different requirements, so it would be unfair to retrospectively apply matters to them which did not apply originally. In the creation of law, you avoid that all costs. That is a fundamental tenet of making law. That is why, in looking at the issues industry and consumers brought to government, it was clear and fair to create the Units Titles Scheme Bill, which we have before us, to set the standards from here. We have also provided the opportunity for people to transition from where they are currently under the Units Titles Act to this more contemporary Units Titles Schemes Bill.
Mr TOLLNER: The issue of retrospectivity would surely apply to the way votes are determined by unanimous resolutions or resolutions without dissent. Why is it possible to apply that and not apply what you have just spoken about?
Ms LAWRIE: Industry sought those reforms.
Mr TOLLNER: So, what you are saying is if industry sought other reforms, such as the merging of the two acts, you would look at it?
Ms LAWRIE: Industry sought those reforms; they are dispute settling procedures. They are for future disputes not for disputes that have previously occurred. By their nature they are not retrospective; they are about how you proceed in the future.
Mr TOLLNER: They are not necessarily just dispute settling abilities. A unanimous resolution can mean quite a lot for the owner of a unit who does not want to see a large rubbish bin, for instance, or a sewerage system put right next door to their unit. They might see that the requirements of a unanimous resolution may give them some ability to stop that. Which is not the same as a resolution without dissent; they may well see it as a watering down of their rights. It is not just dispute resolution. You cannot respond to that?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered you. You are just quibbling.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to unit boundaries, would you explain what changes were made to the draft that outlines exactly what are the body corporate responsibilities and what are not?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised the legislation is not designed to tell you who owns which pipe; I am advised if it is within the common boundary of the unit development, then the body corporate manages it.
Mr TOLLNER: So you would admit that it is very ambiguous in relation to who is responsible for, as you said, pipework, doors, maybe awnings, and the like?
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously doors and awnings are within the common boundary. Pipework is one of those very difficult issues.
Mr TOLLNER: I am advised that there are body corporate managers who have different rules for different buildings. In many places you can have multiple body corporate managers operating. One body corporate manager may agree that doors are part of the responsibility of the body corporate, and others may deem them to be the responsibility of the owner. In relation to pipework, who is responsible where there is one single meter to a building? I am talking about the pipework inside the unit, for instance. Is it the responsibility of the unit owner, or is it the responsibility of the body corporate? The point I am making here, minister, is this legislation is very ambiguous in this regard.
Ms LAWRIE: The advice I received is that, in consultation with body corporate representatives, they recognise you cannot, with any legislation, prevent one body corporate having a different interpretation of what they are going to manage to another body corporate. What is enshrined in this legislation are methods for bodies corporate to deal with any issues that arise for the body corporate. One of the other aspects is the bodies corporate will be participating in advice regarding the fact sheets which are going out.
Mr TOLLNER: In relation to real estate managers, they are required to hold a real estate licence. Body corporate managers are required to hold a real estate licence because they are dealing with trust monies. What is the situation where you have self-managed bodies corporate? Is the self-managed body corporate required to have a real estate licence?
Ms LAWRIE: The self-managed body corporate is not required to have a real estate licence.
Mr TOLLNER: Is the self-managed body corporate required to have a trust account?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Mr WOOD: Moving on to clause 111 which deals with the conversion of the units plan or building development into this new planning scheme. I would like to know whether there has to be a vote taken before the unit title holders who come under the old scheme move into the new Unit Titles Act. In other words, who makes that decision to swap from one act to the other act?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that is one of the outstanding issues. That is why it is actually proposed that the commencement of this provision be deferred for six to 12 months. This will permit time to get the new legislation operational before making decisions about how to apply the new legislation to the old schemes.
Mr TOLLER: I take it, minister, that process would require costs. I imagine that in the next six to 12 months you will determine who will be responsible for those costs?
Ms LAWRIE: The only cost would be the application fee.
Mr WOOD: Still in the same area. Can you point me to where it says you have the transition period of six to 12 months? Is that written in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. That is a policy decision which has been made regarding the workability and the tranches in which aspects of this legislation can come to be.
Mr WOOD: Is that written anywhere here or is it just a …
Ms LAWRIE. No, it is not in the act.
Mr TOLLNER: How can we trust you, minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not going to dignify that with a response.
Mr TOLLNER: Minister, I remind you, you did say Bellamack would be selling off houses early this year not so long ago. All of a sudden, that has changed. How can we be certain that in six to 12 months we will get this done?
Ms LAWRIE: How could you?
Mr WOOD: Moving along to clause 146. This is in relation to changes to the Planning Act. I refer to the second reading speech by the minister. On page 3 of the speech, it said:
- Thus, the consent authority will do more than simply check that there is an occupancy permit under the Building Act or under
any transitional operation of the various acts repealed by the Building Act.
Instead, it will look to see if the building is such that the Australian building code would operate so as to permit the building
to be occupied for the purpose for which it is being subdivided.
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask within that. Is the Australian Building Code something the Territory government has signed up to? I am talking here about five-star energy rated houses. Or, if not, why is it stated in the second reading?
Ms LAWRIE: It is certainly something the Territory government is committed to in regard to the COAG process. Where that is currently at is still in the realms of industry consultation, but we are, in a COAG sense, certainly committed to it.
Mr WOOD: Well, you know my opinion on five-star energy houses for the tropics.
Ms LAWRIE: I have to say that the reason we are in consultation is to create a design that works for the tropics and, similarly, to have a design that works for Central Australia.
Mr WOOD: I am just reminding the government what I think.
Ms LAWRIE: I agree with you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I presume this section 146(q), which states ‘for a proposed subdivision of land on which a building is or will be situated’ etcetera, is referring to what you mentioned in your second reading speech. If that is correct, why is it being done, and what was wrong with the old system?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that this section triggers, if you like, the planning in the sense that you are dealing with walls as boundaries; they are not walls within the development but the actual boundary itself, so in that sense it is seen as a definition of a subdivision.
Mr WOOD: Basically, this is just a specialist clause for this bill. It does not apply anywhere else?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right.
Mr WOOD: I have exhausted all the questions I could find. There are probably more questions if I went through this again and again, but I think I would go a bit silly.
I will be looking forward to the fact sheets, and I hope the government advertises the seminars because it would be important for most parliamentarians to be involved in them; even if we had one for the parliamentarians. This is a common way in which people live these days and they do bring up complications. It would be good for parliamentarians to know how the system works, just as we have to know how the Planning Act works; I see it as an extension of that. I look forward to those seminars.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, member for Nelson. I will commit to provide packs of the fact sheets to all 25 electorate offices. Yes, the seminars will be advertised, but we will also alert you specifically to them.
Mr TOLLNER: Great news, minister, that there are to be seminars. Can you just inform me whether the supervisor for the act and the scheme will be the same person?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it will be a senior Department of Justice official.
Mr TOLLNER: When will this person be named?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised in a month to six weeks, when the act is expected to commence.
Mr TOLLNER: I have exhausted everything I wanted to ask. It is unfortunate the minister could not be better informed on her own legislation. In any case, I am not completely satisfied that it is without needless regulations and legislation. You certainly have not convinced me it cannot be in one act and that the whole thing does not need reforming. Given the fact that many in the community say they support it in principle, we will have to deal with it and see what comes in the future.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process, listening to the minister try to explain something she clearly is not completely across. I have not altered my views on this legislation at all; it is quite obviously complex. Every speaker who spoke on the bill referred to its complexity and that, I have to say, sends shivers down my spine. The more complex you make things the more open to dispute they are. And there is no lack of complexity in this legislation.
I do not think it fits particularly well with the current Unit Titles Act. If it did fit well with the current Unit Titles Act, we would have just reformed the current Unit Titles Act, but that is not what we have done. We have created completely new legislation, something that is complex, something that is open to debate, and there will be many matters stemming from this legislation which will tie up the courts and cost many people significant amounts of money.
I find this whole thing distasteful, particularly when yesterday we had the minister telling us how his government always had an eye on cutting through red tape, removing road blocks, and getting rid of needless regulation. He genuinely seemed to believe what he was saying.
It reinforces my point that we need a regulation relief review advisory committee with people picked from industry bodies around the Territory who can provide frank and fearless advice to government. The motion was put on the table yesterday, it was discussed and it seemed to me there were not many reasons why government would not adopt such a measure. But government and the minister said no; they have all the answers. They have things in place to make sure there is a limited amount of regulation; that apart from people being safe and secure regulation was kept to a minimum; they always had their eye on situations that could arise and they would always try to reform areas where there is confusion, red tape and increased costs for business.
Here we are, not 24 hours later in this Chamber, passing legislation that is complex, cumbersome, full of red tape, and will open up a whole range of people to court actions and will cost many people a lot of money. I find it disappointing in the extreme. I condemn the minister for introducing this legislation and for not driving the department harder; for not taking the time to put in place significant reforms to the existing act which would have seen the existing act made suitable across the board. It takes hard work and dedication, I understand that but, unfortunately, hard work and dedication to a particular cause is something that does not agree with this particular minister. She has shown it on a number of occasions; she is sloppy with her words; she is sloppy with her work. We see it in a range of areas – Lands and Planning. Now we see it here. It just never stops.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim address his remarks through the Chair, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is convention regarding the third reading debate. The issue can only raise matters new, subject to the legislation debate that has been held. He is simply having a weird political rant in direct contravention to third reading debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately I did not hear the entire debate. Member for Fong Lim, if you can just contain your comments. You only have five minutes to go.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker, I apologise. I was not looking at you, but I was always directing my comments through you.
As I was saying, and I have not said previously in this debate, this legislation is emblematic of the sloppy way this minister goes about her work. She is very sloppy; she does not have an eye for detail; she does not consider the wider ramifications of anything. I use the example of Bellamack. She is sloppy with her words.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Fong Lim that this is a third reading debate on the Unit Titles Scheme Bill. It has nothing to do with any grief he has in the round of political stunts that he failed to achieve with his party today at Question Time, and me. It is a debate about this legislation. Bellamack has nothing to do with this legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: The third reading speech, member for Fong Lim, is meant to have no introduction of any new material and must be directly related to the bill. Please continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate your advice there.
As I was saying about the person who introduced it and had carriage of this legislation, namely the Acting Chief Minister in this particular case, what I was saying about the legislation is that it is sloppy and it is complex. Every single speaker during the debate spoke on the complexity of it, how difficult it was to understand, to read and interpret; the confusion that was created because it seems to be, in many cases, in conflict with an existing act of parliament. All of those things are emblematic of the attitude this particular minister takes to her job. She is sloppy with her language …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, please contain your comments to the actual bill in front of us. It is a third reading debate. It is not the second reading debate.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the bill. I am talking about the bill, specifically, and the minister who has carriage of the bill is inextricably linked to this bill. It is the reason why this bill is complex. It is the reason why this bill will create confusion in the real world. It is the reason why our courts will be further clogged up with unnecessary adjudications. It is the reason why business people will be spending large amounts of money seeking advice. That is the reason!
This minister is the reason why all of these problems will occur down the track. In a few months time this minister will have to answer to people who own units, who manage units, who are trying to develop units, and explain to them why we have such complex laws in the Northern Territory. It is particularly galling, as I said, when not 24 hours ago we were talking about trying to relieve regulations and the burden of regulation …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer has raised this issue a number of times. Just reading from the House of Representatives Practice it is protocol that third reading speeches are: ‘not in order to reopen or repeat debate on matters discussed on the motion for the second reading’. It also says it is: ‘limited to the contents of the bill’. This debate should be limited to the contents of the bill. This member is being repetitious. He has made his political point and we need to get on with business in this House.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted another 10 minutes by this House to complete his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in a third reading debate, member for Braitling. Continue your speech and contain it to the bill, member for Fong Lim, or I will ask you to resume your seat immediately.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I was not certain that I could squeeze another 10 minutes out of you. I might be howled down if I was allowed another 10 minutes. The minister over here has just highlighted to me the fact that they try to gag debate; they do not want comment on this legislation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You just said to the member for Fong Lim ‘contain your comments to the bill’ as is required by convention, and he starts to talk on the subject of gagging debate, which this clearly is not.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have a very short period of time. Just talk about the bill and then resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, we have been sold a pig in a poke with this bill. It is disgusting legislation, and the minister should hang her head in shame.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Adjournment Debate - Timing and Conduct
Adjournment Debate - Timing and Conduct
Madam SPEAKER: For the information of honourable members and the purpose of clarification of the procedural arrangements at 9 pm tonight and the conduct of the adjournment of the Assembly, I advise as follows:
Honourable members will be aware that in November 2008, the Assembly adopted the recommendations contained in a report of the Standing Orders Committee for new procedures for the automatic adjournment of the Assembly, now contained in new Standing Order 41A. In subsequent discussions conducted in the Standing Orders Committee, opposition members raised a number of matters relating to the programming of proceedings, in particular the conduct of discussions of MPIs in the operation of the new standing order.
Following discussions in the committee, I now advise that the following procedures guidelines were agreed to for the operation of the new Standing Order 41A:
- The Chair may exercise her discretion to allow a member speaking at 9 pm to continue their speech for up to 10 more minutes. In the event that the discretion is exercised on Monday, Tuesday or Thursday the debate on the question ‘that the Assembly do now adjourn’ will extend for up to 1 hour from the time that the question is proposed:
Further, the member making a speech in the adjournment debate at the expiry of the time limit of one hour may be permitted to conclude their speech subject to the speech time limit of five minutes.
I also advise that I propose to administer the conduct of the adjournment of the Assembly in line with the agreed arrangement until further notice. I also point out the above arrangements are consistent with long-standing practice of this Assembly relating to the discretion of the Speaker.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Cash for Containers
Cash for Containers
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I make a statement that I believe will give great heart to many Territorians, and many Australians, who want a cleaner environment and believe this is possible with little financial incentive and an entrepreneurial spirit.
Last month, I joined the Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay, and the member for Nelson in announcing the Territory will be moving towards its own container deposit scheme or, as we have called it, Cash for Containers. Put simply, a container deposit scheme requires beverage manufacturers to add a deposit and handling fee to beverage products sold in cans, bottles and cartons. Consumers may redeem the deposit by returning empty containers to collection depots. The deposit encourages people not to litter and it rewards those in the community who make the extra effort to clean up after those who, regretfully, cannot be bothered.
Government’s announcement marks a substantial policy shift and a historic day for those who have argued passionately about this over many years. I am sure the member for Nelson and the member for Fannie Bay will agree that it certainly feels like we are embarking on something quite special for Territorians. I say this because the debate surrounding something as simple as container deposit legislation, or CDL, has taken on quite epic proportions over the years. It is now more than 30 years since South Australia enacted its legislation; the second in the world. In the intervening decades, no other Australian jurisdiction has followed South Australia’s lead.
This simple measure has instead been the subject of endless technical analysis and reports. Some say CDL is good, while alternative analysis suggests otherwise and, in the end, nothing happens, no decisions are made. Government has departed from this script. Many in this Chamber will be aware that government did have a close look at CDL a few years ago as, I believe, did the opposition when they were in government. We were certainly attracted by container deposit, but the analyses seemed conflicting. At the time, government took the position the best path forward was to push for the adoption of CDL nationally, and to learn more about how CDL might operate locally. Over the last few years, we have done just that.
Under a successful Environment Grants Program, government has funded a number of projects aimed at supporting voluntary container deposit efforts. Pilot schemes, for example, were established in Alice Springs, Lajamanu and Titjikala. The Alice Springs trial saw more than 450 000 containers returned in less than three months. The trial in Lajamanu reported a return of just under 100 000 beverage containers in a year. The community embraced the trial and continues to work with the store to offer a refund on containers sold.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my predecessors were also successful in bringing CDL to the attention of environment ministers across the nation. Through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, research and analysis has been commissioned but, unfortunately, progress has been slow and is suffering from the same heretically-based approach that has seen 30 years of inaction. It has become clear, from a national perspective, the same old script is rolling out again, and a decision is unlikely to be forthcoming for some years, if at all.
While national CDL remains a goal for us to aspire to, government is not willing to wait on the sidelines for more reports. Instead, I have taken the view that CDL is best looked at from the perspective of the real experience and results achieved. I have asked myself three simple questions: Does CDL do a good job of cleaning up litter from bottles and cans? Can it be successfully implemented? Can it co-exist with the beverage industry? Against these three simple criteria, the answer is clear. Jurisdictions across the world with container deposit schemes have much higher return rates for containers - in the order of 70% to 90% of the containers sold come back for refilling, recycling or disposal - and CDL jurisdictions have less litter from bottles and cans. South Australia, for example, has significantly less beverage container litter than any other jurisdiction, almost half that recorded in the Territory. Of the containers covered by CDL, the Territory has the second-highest litter levels of any jurisdiction, and above the national average.
Most importantly, jurisdictions with CDL have populations actively engaged in fixing the litter problem, not sitting back waiting for someone to do it or blaming others. CDL motivates behavioural change in a grassroots sense. It is not a policy with limited interest to all but a few committed environmentalists. From kids to mums and dads, everyone gets involved; which is a rare commodity, and it is a measure of its popularity that in the many places across the world where CDL is in place, very few jurisdictions have ever dismantled the scheme. Clearly, while not without challenges, we can get CDL up and running in the Territory. I might add the beverage industry has not gone bust in any CDL jurisdiction. You can still buy a bottle of lemonade or a can of beer in any of those places.
Government is convinced that, in principle, CDL can work for the Territory, and we want it in place by the beginning of 2011. As we move to the detailed design of the scheme, government will have three important design criteria in mind. We want a CDL system that is legally sound, financially sound and capable of implementation in both urban and remote parts of the Territory. I am very confident these conditions can be met. We do not believe there are any show stoppers and, as we progress, solutions can and will be found to deal with these criteria and any other issues which may emerge. The detailed design work is not a trivial or easy task and it will take some time.
I am aware there are some in the community who want CDL straightaway or are interpreting any delay as a wavering in government’s resolve. I can understand these sentiments, but let me be very clear - government intends to implement CDL. However, it is no one’s interest to rush and implement a scheme which is not sustainable.
It is on this point I have to express some concern with Alice Springs Town Council which has just announced an Alice Springs-based container return scheme. I express this concern not from any churlishness on my government’s part; I am the first to embrace such efforts if they help transition to a Territory-wide scheme. Critically, I note it will be ratepayers, whether they consume bottled beverages or not, who will be paying for the proposed Alice Springs scheme. The beverage industry will not be accepting any responsibility as is required in a legislated scheme. Bankrolling container returns in this way, while useful in a trial, does not provide a sustainable proposition.
Creating a local return scheme also introduces significant complexities and risks which are lessened or simply will not arise in the Territory-wide deposit scheme that government is developing. Most importantly, I do not believe council will be able to control an influx of containers from outside the town. Does council seriously believe it can limit this by only allowing Alice Springs residents to return containers? It will not work fairly; people outside Alice Springs will simply load up the ute and get a mate from Alice to get the cash. Can I just say, I have family who live on Aboriginal communities, and so do many other people, at Hermannsburg, Titjikala, and Santa Teresa; what is stopping those people from bringing in 500 containers to their family, and their family selling them in Alice Springs?
That is why we need to carefully and quickly move to a mandatory Territory-wide deposit scheme. While we can learn from South Australia, there will be some issues that even they have not had to address and where we will need to learn from the international experience or develop unique solutions for ourselves. Hawaii and Ontario, for example, implemented CDL quite recently and will provide a good contemporary experience to learn from. Canada’s Northwest Territory and the Yukon will provide experience of operating CDL over large areas with few people. Once we have resolved the design issues implementation will involve a number of important steps. For example:
legislation to establish the scheme needs to be developed and passed;
the community will rightly expect opportunity for input;
a materials coordinator needs to be established for the purpose of brokering the deposits and handling fees
between manufacturers and the collection depots;
a systematic compliance, accounting and auditing regime of materials and deposits needs to be developed to
ensure the financial and legal robustness of the scheme;
main collection depots need to be in place. Potentially, this will involve an expression of interest process;
a clear set of policies and standards for redeeming deposits needs to be developed to guide operations of
collection depots, which will then need to be licensed.
The materials coordinator will need to enter into financial arrangements with collection depots. Industry needs to change its labels and enter into arrangements with the materials coordinator, and a substantial community awareness program needs to be developed.
Achieving all this by 2011 will require hard work and careful planning. If we can get Cash for Containers in place before 2011, we will. Hawaii, for example, took over two years to get their CDL system up and running, so I do not believe 2011 is in any way an easy target. It will be tight.
To assist in these tasks and drive the necessary to be undertaken, I am very pleased the member for Nelson and the member for Fannie Bay have agreed to team up with me. As the Cash for Containers Reference Committee, we will be steering the interdepartmental arrangements which have been put in place to resolve the outstanding design issues for the scheme, and address implementation. As a committee, we have been very quick out of the blocks, we met for the first time the day after government publicly announced its decision in favour of CDL, and last week we had the pleasure of visiting South Australia to see firsthand how their scheme operates and to meet with government officials and the local recycling industry - not for the first time, in the case of member for Nelson.
I want to make it clear the reference committee is not in place to simply have another inquiry into the merits of CDL, or to produce another report. It is there to drive and guide the implementation of Cash for Containers in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, since we announced government’s policy shift on CDL, my office has received many offers of support and assistance from across Australia. The Premier of South Australia wrote to offer his assistance and, during our recent visit to that state, I was very grateful for the offers of assistance from government officials and the recycling industry. Companies with innovative technologies such as reverse vending machines offered support. My department has established a dedicated Cash for Containers website to keep everyone up to date and provide the community with an opportunity to register their support or interest in participating in the scheme.
I acknowledge that CDL is not universally supported. The beverage industry, for example, is on the record as opposing CDL. Over the coming months, the committee will be making every effort to have discussions with a range of industries, and I hope they will see there is more to be gained through dialogue than opposition and, with good will on both sides, we can develop a container deposit scheme that is of long-term value to the community in which they operate.
No doubt among both supporters and opponents of CDL, last month’s announcement will raise many questions. I want to briefly anticipate some of these and set the record straight from the outset.
First, the scheme will be aligned to South Australia in terms of the level of deposit - 10 - and I envisage at least the same beverage products and containers will be covered, including beer, soft drinks and flavoured milk. We will also be looking to see whether additional beverage products could be covered to address particular Territory circumstances. As we saw in South Australia, there are a few inconsistencies we would like to iron out and simplify in our scheme.
Second, I want to make it clear that shops will not be forced to redeem deposits although, if they choose to do so, this will be possible. In remote communities, experiences from our trials suggest community store operators may see benefits in offering this service.
Third, government is investigating the science to ensure financial viability of any new scheme. The scheme is not intended to be government run, with no expectations of government financial or overall operations.
Finally, while I understand the desire in the community for Cash for Containers to commence as soon as possible, there is no point in stockpiling containers now. This is critical to ensure the financial viability of the operations.
In closing, it would be remiss of me not to thank many people whose hard work and passion over 20 years, or so, has got us to this point today: the late George Brown, former Lord Mayor of Darwin; the late Andy McNeill, former Mayor of Alice Springs; Jim Forscutt, former Mayor of Katherine; Lorna Woods, former Executive Officer of Keep Australia Beautiful NT; Merv Meyer of Shoal Bay Recycling; the former member for Braitling, Loraine Braham; and the current member for Nelson.
At times over the years, the debate on CDL has had its fair share of rough and tumble. Today, we can put that aside and begin the journey which will see us join the many other jurisdictions across the world with container deposit schemes; places as diverse as Denmark, Israel, Kiribati, and 11 states in the United States, including California and Hawaii.
I do not pretend that Cash for Containers is going to fix all our litter problems. It will not. However, it is very effective for what it targets, and what it targets is clearly a big part of the problem. We should embrace those solutions which clearly work.
We can show a clean, green image to visitors who come to share our unique environment and lifestyle. It puts money into the pockets of people who do the right thing. Kids and community groups will have a chance to raise funds. In fact, I hope that collecting cans and bottles for a few dollars will be the first job many young Territory kids have, and that they get a taste of the rewards that come from a bit of hard work. In the end, that is what this is all about. It is more than just getting litter off our streets, as important as that is; it is about harnessing positive community attitudes so we do the right thing. In doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can all feel a bit stronger as a community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am excited! I am not here to talk about the benefits of CDL, except to say it is about more than just litter, it is also about recycling and reduction of landfill. I am here to say we are going full steam ahead and we have a lot of work to do. I would like to talk tonight about some of the issues we face.
I will give you an idea of how big a job this is going to be; I know some people thought it should have come on more quickly. I will read you this statement from the Australian Food and Grocery Council, which is the new Beverage Industry Environment Council. They issued this media release on 11 March 2009, which was headed ‘Chief Minister Henderson in the dark?’ It said:
- Australian Food and Grocery Council Chief Executive Kate Carnell said today that it was disappointing the Northern Territory Chief Minister
didn’t seem to know there was already a national inquiry into a possible container deposit scheme. She was responding to a release by
the Northern Territory Chief Minister Paul Henderson stating the Territory government would support a container deposit system and convene
a reference group to explore the issue.
At least they know we are about:
- ‘It is a little alarming the Northern Territory government has decided to act in isolation ahead of the results of the national inquiry and make an
ill informed decision to support such a costly scheme’, Ms Carnell said. ‘It seems like a wast of time and taxpayer money to have an isolated
reference look into the same issues when the national inquiry into a container deposit scheme will be delivered to environmental ministers in May’.
‘I trust that Mr Henderson understands that he has chosen to support an inefficient system that would increase costs of a carton of beer by
approximately $4 to $5. This will hurt Territory households that are already facing cost pressures and real possibility of increased unemployment.
And all for something that is unlikely to work in rural and remote communities where the costs of implementing such a system would be astronomical’.
- Ms Carnell said that it was also of concern that the reference group Mr Henderson is setting up to ‘explore’ the issue doesn’t include anyone from industry.
‘If Mr Henderson is basing his system on South Australia, I suggest it might be useful to understand it is industry that runs that program’.
There you see part of the problem we are going to have. We have to be prepared to stand up to this group of people. The reason container deposit systems are not in Western Australia is primarily because of this powerful lobby group. They have infiltrated groups such as the Keep Australia Beautiful Council. They have their noses in local government associations. They know what they are about; they have the money to do it and we are going to have to really work hard to implement what we think is good for the Territory, not what we think is good for this particular industry.
I will give you an example of why some of this statement is wrong. When we were in South Australia, it was mentioned to us that the South Australian government also put in a submission to this national inquiry, and they mentioned one thing others had put in - possibly the Australian Food and Grocery Council - they added in a thing called ‘the inconvenience factor’. Now, this is one of those things you introduce to make sure something does not look sustainable. What they are saying is if you have to take your bottles and cans to a particular shed somewhere, you will have to go out of your way to do it, and to go out of your way to do it, we will put a value on that. That would be a negative value and that will add to the cost of the scheme. They do not say: ‘If you want to get a drink you have to go to a shop, and that is out of your way to get a drink’. No, no, they have invented this particular value simply to try to make the system look inefficient.
We have to be clever enough to stand up to this sort of tactic, which is primarily designed to convince the federal government not to introduce a national deposit scheme. So, if it does not happen, do not be surprised. I hope it does happen. In the meantime, I think we go full steam ahead, because I have heard about this National Profit Scheme for years; I have heard about these so-called packaging covenants, they have been around for years. They were like a blockage to talking about this type of thing.
This scheme we are looking at today, we should be determined to make sure it goes through, and I believe we will have all sides of parliament supporting it. I have spoken to the opposition shadow minister on these issues, and I believe he is 100% behind what we are doing. That does not mean he does not question things, but the philosophy of what we are trying to do is one I know he supports. How we get to this goal? Well, it will require different points of view; otherwise we will not come up with the best solution.
I would like to look at some of the issues we need to address if we are really to move ahead with this. We need to get Northern Territory industry onside. We do not have those manufacturing industries they are talking about down south, but we do have our local industries. We need to get the Chamber of Commerce onside. The word I heard is they do not support it. Well, let us go around and see the Chamber of Commerce and tell them of the benefits. It is about commerce. They should be supporting it; we are not trying to ruin industry, we are trying to encourage industry. So we need to be talking to those people: the local distributors, the Hotels Association, all those people. We need to be talking locally and convince them, not their big masters down south – we need to convince the local people that this will be beneficial for the Territory.
We also need to look at how it will operate on the ground. In our trip to South Australia, we saw things we would not want to copy. We have to remember the South Australian system has been operating for over 30 years and it has basically evolved, so it has some faults which make it, to some extent, inefficient. That is not saying it does not work, but it could work better if it did not have some of those things which, basically, have come along with time and, because the industry runs it, it is very hard to change. For instance, they have about six, what they call, super collectors, or material collectors. They are mainly owned by the industry, and there are complications with having several of these super collectors because they have their own arrangements with other collectors, and it gets all too complicated.
The Territory model - and I am not saying this will be the model in the end, I am putting forward my ideas - will have a single materials collector. It has to be a business. I mentioned it could be local government, I am not saying it will be; it could be simply a private business that will run it, and runs it as a business. The government may suggest certain things as to how that business should run. It may be, if there are any excess profits, you have to remember as it was told to me in South Australia, a lot of profits will have to go back into the system for sorting machines, collecting machines, trucks, baling machines, all those things will need to be maintained or replaced. Profits go back into that. Money will also be raised by the sales of the product. One person will be collecting a product and they will be able to look for the best markets for the plastic, glass, aluminium, and waxed paper. That is one thing we need to do differently to South Australia.
The other thing is the types of containers which the minister just spoke about. If it is possible, we should not go down the South Australian path. It is a bit hard to see a black and white photograph from where you are, but I can tell you this photograph is a series of containers. Every second one is nearly the same as the first one, but every second one does not have a 10 deposit on it. For instance, in South Australia, due to lobbying from the wine industry, a glass bottle of wine does not have a 10 deposit on it, but non-alcoholic wine has a 10 deposit on it. Bottles of fruit juice: a fruit juice drink can be in exactly the same container as fruit juice but the fruit juice drink gets a 10 deposit; the fruit juice is not regarded as a beverage, therefore, it does not have the 10 on it.
Water can come in a small container and have 10 on it but, if it comes in a larger litre container, it does not have 10 on it. One of the arguments is: a small bottle is a throwaway size. The big bottle is not; it is one you put in the fridge. The same with milk; the 600 ml iced coffee carton in South Australia gets you 10 but the one litre carton of the same thing does not have any deposit on it. We have to avoid that. How are you going to sort all that out? You can see from the poor people in South Australia they get bottles which look exactly the same and you have to know, one, whether there is a 10 refund to give someone, and two, they have to know whether they can separate them into the ones with a deposit so they can collect their money from the super collector. We need to avoid that. We have to convince the industry we are going to look at the containers generally used in the Northern Territory for drink purposes; whether it is a small container or large container. For instance, milk containers do not have 10 on them, but a 600 ml milk container of iced coffee has 10 deposit.
The plastic HDTE milk bottles do not have 10 deposit. The reason for that is a small lobby group said: ‘Milk is a basic food for our families; if you bump it up, our children will starve’, or something. We would like to know who funded this little group, but they were a big enough lobby group to convince the politicians not to put 10 on a milk carton even though they go back to the collectors and get all their money back. We have to learn from the inefficiencies of South Australia. We can make our system even better.
One of the interesting things about the system in South Australia is they combine the collectors - the people who come to you with bottles and cans - they combine that with recycling other materials. What happens is people get into the habit of coming to the recycler and they see bins there with copper, old electrical meters, all sorts of things; whatever you might have at the back of the house, you bring it along in a trailer and there is a bin for it and you put it in there. You get your money for your recycled goods, which are your containers, and at the same time you know you are going to the recycling depot and because it is all laid out neat and tidy, you just put it in. You do not get any money for it, but you have used the opportunity to recycle other materials which normally would not have a deposit on it. That is something we should be looking at.
We would not have local collectors just collecting bottles and cans; we could have, for instance, someone in Winnellie with a big yard to pick up all these other materials. We would need to change labels, and there should be discussion about how that would happen. There was discussion about having a map which shows South Australia and the Northern Territory as coming under this scheme so people immediately saw, if they were in these states, they can get their money back; or, whether we just add NT to the existing labels. That will require a bit of time because companies will say it will take them time to change their labels, but I believe we have to get around that by saying they have to have their labels changed by a certain time. And if they do not change them, we are still going to charge them for the bottles coming into the Territory, and we are going to start the scheme up regardless. The other thing is to try to get them to write the 5 and 10 bigger, because on some containers you can hardly see it.
The hard issue for the Territory is will we be the only ones having NT put on some of the containers, because South Australia does not have it on fruit juice containers, milk containers or on wine. So, we are going to have to introduce legislation which says if you want to sell a product in the Northern Territory you must have a label - and that is it. Of course, there will be some flack from the industry, but it is not that difficult to change the label. It will be of benefit to South Australia, as well, because South Australia has been trying to fix this anomaly for ages, and they have been caught up in the definition of what is a beverage. Well, we are not going to talk about beverages. We are talking about containers so if we ever wanted to include jam jars and liquid soap containers, we would be able to do that. They got stuck with this concept that it is about a beverage, and then argued till the lawyers go home what is a beverage. That is why they have this problem. So we need to avoid that, as well.
There are the start-up issues, and that is going to be a difficult one, there is no doubt about it. The minister spoke to the groups in South Australia about it. People are going to think they can hoard up all the cans and bottles and as soon as they are ready they will run them in. We will have to work out a scheme which says from a certain date only certain containers will be accepted, and it might be only the containers which have ‘10 South Australian deposit’ written on them; they are the only ones we will take, even though they might not be counted in our original stock. We may need to ask the government for some seeding money to cover that initial stage because there will be some problems we have to work through for the first couple of years.
It is not easy; we are the first territory to introduce this scheme from a blank sheet of paper. It evolved in South Australia, but we are now making a considered move to do it from scratch. We can learn from other models, like Hawaii, which introduced its scheme in 2006. There are a number of other places which have also introduced schemes recently - Estonia, Germany, Denmark and Israel, for instance, all introduced their new schemes this century. And there are many other countries, I mentioned the United States, and I believe most of Canada has a system as well. So we have to work through all that. I hope people will have patience. I know the Mayor of Alice Springs has said to hurry it along and I, for one, would love to hurry along, but the reality is you have to get it right. If you stuff up at the beginning, you will have a bad name for ever and a day, and that will be the end of it. We have to make sure it is right.
We also have to look at how we can deal with communities just outside the Territory. The Pitjantjatjara lands, for instance, south of the Northern Territory border; the people there generally buy all their goods from Alice Springs. At the moment they are not in the South Australia scheme for that reason, because they do not purchase their goods from South Australia. If we join, and I say ‘join’ in inverted commas, with South Australia, those people will be able to then get their money back because they have bought their cans from the Northern Territory - which is what the system is about, you get your deposit back in the state or territory you have bought the cans
The other areas would be Kununurra and Wyndham and how we could work with them. I believe we need to talk to the Western Australian government, which has certainly been looking at the container deposit system - with the change of government, I believe it has not been knocked on the head, but it has not gone ahead. We need to talk to them because if we get them onside the Kununurra/Wyndham issue would possibly go away. There is also Camooweal and Mt Isa, but that may not be a problem because they may get most of their materials from Brisbane, not from the Territory.
Another thing we can possibly learn from South Australia, and this is why I think it is good we went there, sometimes they receive their cans and bottles all mixed up together. What we could introduce, right at the beginning, is you will not get your money unless your cans, bottles, waxed paper or whatever, are separated. That could also include coloured glass and clear glass, which is always a problem with the industry. If someone comes with a box of things you would say: ‘You can take it home or you can sit out there and sort it’. Basically, we would ask people to do the sorting themselves. That reduces costs and makes the whole scheme more profitable. That is what we have to do; it is a very simple way of separating goods. They do not do that in South Australia because there is no legislation to require it. If you go to Cleanaway, you will see someone standing in front of a conveyor belt for hours on end, separating things. We could have the separation done simply by asking the consumer to separate items before bringing them to the collector. That is something we could add into the system.
We got some good ideas from South Australia. They said to make sure we look at our legislation to cover what is a new process. For instance, Coca-Cola might make all their cans in Sydney and distribute them to a large distributor for Woolworths in Victoria and, from there, Woolworths distribute them to Darwin. They will say: ‘We did not distribute to the Northern Territory; we distributed to Victoria, so we do not count’. We have to ensure we have legislation which covers that and says: ‘The coke you bring into the Territory, regardless of whether it went through a distributor or otherwise, is part of the system’. Again, legislation will have to be up-to-date to cover these new requirements. The good thing is that the industry in South Australia is willing to help.
We visited the EPA – they have a good Environmental Protection Authority in South Australia - Recyclers of SA. They met us at a collector’s site in Adelaide; and we also met with the board of one of the large material collectors, Statewide Recycling, as well. All of them - the government and industry - said they want to help us. If you have ever seen a lot of people with smiles on their faces, you saw it when the minister sat amongst these people and they asked why we were there. The minister said: ‘We are not here to learn about container deposit systems; we know this is what we want. We are going to bring a container deposit system into the Northern Territory, and we want your support’. There were some pretty big smiles on their faces because, for years, they have been pushing the system. They know the system is good and they will, I believe, be our greatest friends and helpers in bringing this into the Northern Territory so it starts off on the right foot, because they know the system inside out. They know how great it is for the environment, and they know how great it is for the state of South Australia.
We certainly will need these people to look at legislation and at the mechanics of how the system will work in the Northern Territory. With these good people behind us, we have a 100% chance of making sure this will be successful. I really appreciate the support those people gave us. We finished the day with them, and we were all - pardon me - stuffed. It was a solid day. They gave us so much information about their industry, how it worked and the inefficiencies in it, and we certainly learnt a lot. I hope they do come up here soon to give us a hand where possible.
Some of the changes in South Australia which have occurred: they have moved from 5 to 10 deposit for cans, and you will notice some of the companies have still not changed to 10, so it is not so easy to get industry to change. If you pick up some bottles and cans at the moment, you will notice the deposit varies. They have changed to collecting money on waxed paper carton products like iced coffee. However, as I said, how can you tell the difference between an iced coffee carton and a plain 600 ml milk carton? They are both waxed paper containers.
They also spoke about reverse vending machines. I do not know how they will go in the Northern Territory. Someone told me the other day - I think it was the member for Fannie Bay - that these are going to be compulsory in New York in some of the big shopping centres. Simply, it is a machine where you put your bottle or can or carton and it crushes it, and gives you get a voucher. I would imagine, if it is in a shopping centre, that you can use that voucher anywhere within the shopping centre. You do not get any money, but you get a voucher. They are not cheap machines - $40 000 - and you are looking at taking up space in the shopping centre. But for highly populated areas where it is not so simple to go to the local collector, or where there may be no room for a local collector, this is an option that the service industry, supermarkets and those types of places might be willing to look at. Do not forget, they get some money back too, because they own the bottles and cans, but they have to cover $40 000 plus the running costs, so they would have to get their sums right. This is another option they are trialling in South Australia. We have not seen it personally, but one company is talking about coming up here soon so, hopefully, that will be something we can avail ourselves of.
Overall, it was a great trip to South Australia. We have a long way to go, but I believe there is a bipartisan feel about this in the parliament. I will throw this in, and I do not mind if the minister does not agree with me, but I personally would be happy if the member for Brennan was part of our reference group. Having spoken to member for Brennan, I think he is a bloke who would benefit our reference group; he has a lot of common sense; he is a person who certainly has a lot of feeling for the environment. If you read what he said in the paper on the weekend, he is nearly as good as me – he is nearly independent. I digress, Madam Speaker. But I ask the government to consider the member for Brennan being part of our reference group, because I believe one way to fight the industry is to be united.
One way to convince the people in the Northern Territory that this is a good thing for the Territory is for all of us to get together. I suppose I am being a bit philosophical, but it would be nice if all the people in this parliament worked together towards a single goal. This is a good goal, and if we could bring one member from the opposition on, that would be good. This does not have to be political; this is something we can do to benefit the Territory.
We are starting some trials to show people how the system works, because it is a while since Coke had their bottling machine in Darwin; it is now in the middle of the harbour as a lovely fishing reef. There would be many young people today who would have no idea you can get money back for a drink container. When I was young it was how you got another drink, or you bought a pie on the way home from the football because of what you could find under the seats. Many people do not understand that. They have not been brought up with that system. They have lived in a throwaway society.
I believe there are opportunities coming up for us to show the public, especially younger people, how this system would work. The government is basically offering some money, well, asking the Howard Springs Scout Group to be provided with a small grant which they can use at the Freds Pass Show, probably on the Saturday. Basically, anyone who brings them a bottle or can will get 10 for it. They will register that, and thanks to Col Hardy from CMA Recycling, he has offered to donate some bins for this purpose. In fact, he is a man we should be talking to – he is very much into recycling in the whole of northern Australia. He was telling me he has been part of a scheme in Port Hedland where Rio Tinto and BHP have actually put in a deposit scheme for containers in that town; so he has a lot of knowledge about these things, especially in relation to northern Australia. We are hoping to teach people if they bring their bottles and cans back, they will get some money for them; it is not rubbish. The next day, Sunday - hopefully we will not have any money left, because once the money runs out, that is it - we will see how many come back when there is no deposit, and compare the two. If you look at the return rates for all the products in South Australia, they leave the rest for dead.
They also have kerbside recycling, which the Australian Food and Grocery Council will probably tell you this scheme ruins. Adelaide has kerbside recycling; Adelaide has a deposit scheme, and Adelaide has the highest return rates for just about every recyclable product in relation to containers. So, we know it works. We have to make sure we learn by the inefficiencies of the South Australian model. If it can have the highest return rate with all those inefficiencies, imagine if we get rid of all those inefficiencies, we will also have a very high rate.
There is much more work to be done. I thank the minister for allowing me to be on this reference group, and I thank the member for Fannie Bay. I sincerely would like to put it to government, again, to consider the member for Brennan; he is a genuine bloke and, as I said, he is nearly an Independent. He is not an Independent politically, but I know he is independent in his thinking and he would be a great asset.
I support the minister’s statement. I will say again, I am excited, but we have a tough row to hoe before we get this into the Northern Territory, and we must bring the people of the Northern Territory along with us.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Country Liberals commend the minister for moving forward with the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation. We trust a model will be both financially sound and considers the Territory’s unique position for being remote and with a low population base. The Country Liberals’ own policy supports CDL; the policy is to reduce the amount of landfill and encourage active recycling of glass, plastic and aluminium beverage containers by providing a financial incentive offset by increased price. This could be a source of fundraising for clubs, schools and charities, independent of government grants, to be run in conjunction with existing kerbside recycling collection in areas which have such collection services.
With that point in mind, we support moving forward with Container Deposit Legislation. In doing so, it must be said there are many concerns to be addressed, many hurdles to cross and much to learn and evaluate before a successful model can be introduced; none more so than this government’s propensity to run the gauntlet with its headline-grabbing policy well before any real work, or even proof of delivery, has been demonstrated.
As I said, this side of the House very much supports CDL, but I cannot help being cynical because I recall seeing glossy brochures time and time again, even before the last election, bragging about delivering a pool in the rural area. I suggest the government should look at the word ‘delivery’ in the dictionary, as I am positive in most people’s mind to have something delivered, is to have it in one’s hand. Just like the postman – he actually delivers mail; he does not announce he intends to deliver the mail tomorrow or the next day, or perhaps the day after. He actually delivers. With that in mind, I trust the postie more that I trust this government. Even though he brings me far too many bills this postie, many of course from the government - that is something they can deliver.
Do not get me started on glossy brochures. The government is quite prepared to promote themselves as great leaders delivering for Territorians; promoting how good government housing is; how well they have managed law and order issues; brag about how much money they have spent; and brag about how full the prisons are, like it is a badge of honour. Let me tell, you a full prison is not a badge of honour; it is a cruel example of years of failed social policy. A real badge of honour for a government would be empty gaols because the policies have led to a positive change in community attitudes, respect and decency.
I cannot help to be sceptical, as are many Territorians, or have become over time, particularly over the last eight years, with hundreds of grandiose announcements leading to zero outcomes. Even with CDL, we have had an on-again, off-again approach by this government due to a number of reasons including the financial viability of any program.
Let us look at a press release by the then minister, Dr Burns. In 2003, he suggested the government had rejected introducing Container Deposit Legislation because of predictions it would result in an increase in the cost of living for many Territory families:
The Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr Chris Burns said the model would have led to price rises and an increase in the weekly family shopping bill. There were also serious issues over taxation and operational concerns associated with the model proposed. Some estimates even pointed to the model resulting in a $3 to $5 increase in the cost of a carton of beer.
- ‘Now is not the time to be increasing the cost of living for Territory households’, Dr Burns said.
I am not sure if there is a good time to increase the cost.
However, in March 2006, the member for Nelson put out a media release suggesting the government believed in CDL, but could not bring itself to apply the scheme to the whole of the Territory. The member for Nelson called the government’s contract to investigate the logistics of CDL in remote communities a ‘back door approach’ and if the government was serious about recycling - this is from the media release - reducing greenhouse gases and reducing landfill, then it should introduce CDL. It works in South Australia; it could work in the Northern Territory.’
Then in April 2008, the then minister for Environment put out a press release which said:
- … today’s move by State, Territory and Federal counterparts to investigate the merits of a national container deposit system is a win for Territorians.
‘The Territory government has always said a national approach to Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) will be the most effective system, and I believe
today’s outcome is a win for Territorians,’ Mr Kiely said.
‘A nationally coordinated analysis of container deposit schemes will now be undertaken, and we will ensure that any such scheme in the NT is right for Territorians.’
That is three or four things we have had now and the question is: are we there yet? I believe we should introduce a MRDL which is a Media Release Deposit Legislation scheme. I appreciate government being frustrated by the time it has taken to introduce a national scheme, and I am sure we all agree a national approach would be a very good and simpler approach. However, for a government to criticise the Alice Springs Town Council for wanting to go alone is perhaps a little hypocritical because, I would assume, the Alice Springs Town Council is also frustrated and is moving down the road of a local model for the very same reasons this government states: it is frustrated with the time the federal government is taking on a national program.
Another risk which should be highlighted is the real risk of introducing a scheme at great cost only to come up with the real potential of a national program being introduced in a few years. And, if the Territory’s model sits outside the national model, the cost involved in modifying our local model could be substantial. The truth is, if a national model is introduced, you could not expect the national beverage industry to wear the costs of an individual program in different states and territories around Australia. A national model would be just that: a national model.
A bit of background: an independent review conducted by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney was commissioned by the New South Wales Environment minister to examine the economic, environmental and social impacts of introducing Container Deposit Legislation. The review reported a deposit and refund system on drink containers could provide benefits to the community worth $100m annually - and this is just in New South Wales, so it is a very viable option, you would think.
In New South Wales, there are approximately 1.7 billion beverage containers which do not get collected for recycling and are disposed of into landfill. According to the head of the research team, Dr Stuart White, the environmental cost is around 8 to 9 per container that is lost to landfill. The report also estimated that a container deposit system would create up to 1500 permanent full-time jobs and create an income stream for clubs, schools, charities and the disadvantaged, and ease recycling costs for council. Data collected from the 19th Clean Up Australia Day reported that beverage containers comprised one third, over 2400 tonnes, of all rubbish collected during the 2008 campaign. Mr Kiernan from Clean Up Australia stated:
- What is now needed is a recycling system that operates in places away from home where much of this waste is being created. Offering a refund to
consumers for their drink can or bottles would significantly improve recycling rates and reduce the amount of rubbish being dumped in the environment.
The real cost associated with any recycling program in a remote location – and I include Darwin in that grouping because, by definition, we are very remote from the recycle markets in the southern states – is the cost of freight and the resale value of any recycled product. For instance, there is no financial viability in returning a compacted block of paper and cardboard to, say, the Australian Paper Mill in Melbourne if the cost of getting the recycling material to Melbourne is more than the value of that material.
To explore that a little more, it is very unfortunate the situation here in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Darwin/Palmerston area, with as much as 70% of recycled material delegated to landfill because of a number of factors including contaminated waste and the market, in regard to any given material. Again, it comes down to the cost of recovery is more than the market value of the waste. This, of course, is not true with all materials. Aluminium is just one product where it can be demonstrated there is a 20-fold cost saving in recycling versus the cost of producing more material.
If your sole purpose for introducing CDL was to improve our environment by removing the high levels of waste we have across the Territory, it can be done at a minimum cost, as long as you are prepared to dig a hole for most of the waste and only continue the recycle process with high-value material such as aluminium. However, this would not be seen as acceptable by most people if they realised just how much of our recycled material today ends up in our landfills. They would be truly surprised, perhaps horrified, that the reason is cost.
I recall as a child, particularly around Christmas time, together with my cousins, we would load up the wheelbarrow at Nanna’s place with all the empty soft drink bottles consumed over Christmas, and off we would trot to the local milk bar to return all the bottles and spend the spoils on lollies and milkshakes - not those plastic, pretend milkshakes you get in most outlets today, real milkshakes – at Turnley’s Milk Bar in Moulamein southern New South Wales - real milkshakes. They were served in tin containers, not those plastic and cardboard things you get today. Does anyone remember those?
Members: Yes, absolutely.
Mr CHANDLER: Digging a little deeper, and recognising the climate at the time regarding recycling, the difference was: first, the milkshake container I was drinking out of was washed and used again. The bottles we were returning went back to the soft drink factory. They were cleaned, disinfected and filled again. I still remember seeing bottles so scratched you could not help think about how many times it had been through that process. I also recall most of the small towns having a depot absolutely full of crates of deep brown empty bottles; I was not sure what they were at the time, but all returned because of the deposit return on each bottle at the time.
The difference then compared to now was the fact that the cost to produce a bottle was more than the 20 refund at the time. Today, unfortunately, for recycling purposes, it would appear far more expensive for the beverage industry to use a similar system. In fact, today it is my understanding many bottles can be produced for 20 or less, making it more economical to use new bottles, whether they be glass or plastic, each time they are filled. That is disappointing, but a fact.
One of the problems I have with recent and the latest media release is government still has an out. This media release starts off with saying: ‘The Chief Minister Paul Henderson today announced’ - another announcement - it says:
- My government has made the commitment in principle …
In principle:
- … to adopt cash for containers legislation by 2011 provided it is financially viable, legally sound and can deliver in both urban and remote centres.
The words ‘financially viable’ are just one such out. While this side of the House certainly agrees with this principle, having worked with this government for a while I have learned, unfortunately, not to trust its capacity to actually deliver.
Let us move on to the minister’s statement today. I note three questions the minister asked of herself, and they were good questions. The first question: does CDL do a good job cleaning up litter from bottles and cans? Well, the answer is certainly yes. The second question is: can it be successfully implemented? To say yes to that draws a very long bow at this early stage, particularly given the previous advice from investigation after investigation. I say this because I trust, had the numbers stacked up before, this legislation, based on common sense, would have been introduced years ago …
Mr Wood: .There was no common sense then.
Mr CHANDLER: That is the difference.
Mr Wood: There is now, we are in a new age.
Mr CHANDLER: There is also one word within that question which, perhaps, should be scrutinised further, and that word is ‘successfully’. Many things today can be achieved at a cost. What will this cost Territorians? While I should remind the House the Country Liberals support CDL, we do not support a model that unfairly impacts on the mums and dads, the elderly and the young
The third question is: can it co-exist with the beverage industry? We all know it currently exists within the beverage industry in Australia, given that South Australia has had CDL for decades but, given the beverage industry is a national industry, the question could be, how flexible will they be if we have a roll-out of local models around the country?
Madam Deputy Speaker, one point I would like to make in regard to storing materials particularly in a tropical environment, given most CDL models promote home style storage of material to be transported to larger depots when your storage area is full, storing material that has the capacity to attract ants and other vermin can lead to disease and general filth. While washing out material prevents this to some degree, the added waste with our valuable water resource questions the balance we have here, particularly when we are supposed to be protecting the environment. I propose some level of education may be required to support home storage.
Government proposes to introduce CDL that is legally and financially sound, and capable of being implemented in rural, remote and urban parts of the Northern Territory. While all of this is possible at cost, I suggest many of the past recommendations from research undertaken suggests it cannot be done without considerable cost and is perhaps the sole reason why CDL has not been successfully implemented in the past.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the question should be: given this research and its recommendations, what has changed in recent times that provide this government with the idea that it can be done now, and can be achieved now without significant cost? Perhaps this will be this government’s way out again. I sincerely hope it is not, as we can all agree, CDL is a good concept.
I note in the statement a reference to a reverse vending machine. I may have to take some counsel on that term, but if it does refer to a vending machine that takes your money without delivering a product - we already have those in the Territory. I kid with you. I have also heard that reverse vending machines, or that term is used for poker machines, or even a Labor government.
The fact is, the member for Nelson was able to provide a brief description of a reverse vending machine, and I thank him for that. I do understand these machines could be placed at shops and bus depots, providing a quick and easy deposit return on containers. I wonder if they work on weight however, because I wonder how long it will take for a kid to put a little sand in each can, just to up the return slightly.
I, too, look forward to the days where young children, community groups and perhaps even schools, can all get involved in recycling through Container Deposit Legislation, where young children can either use the money towards saving, or perhaps spending a little and enjoying the spoils of their efforts. Whatever model is used, I urge the government not to make it too difficult for people, because if make it too hard, you may take the opportunity away for young children to enjoy what I once did by loading up the wheelbarrow and heading off to the local shop to get my refund.
The minister said the NT scheme would be modelled on the South Australian Container Deposit Legislation where cans, bottles and cartons attract a 10 refund. The member for Nelson has been promoting this idea for many years and one can only commend him on his efforts for trying so hard for so long.
If, as it says in the last media release, ‘it gets litter of the streets and money into the pockets of people who do the right thing,’ it gives kids and community groups a chance to raise funds and we can show a clean, green image to visitors who come to share our unique environment and lifestyle. That is certainly legislation and a model we should aspire to and, hopefully, it works and does exactly what it sets out to do. I thank the minister for bringing this forward.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and, like the member for Nelson, I am excited. It is a great initiative we are undertaking here and the minister made an excellent contribution, as did the member for Nelson.
It is a bit hard to remain excited after the member for Brennan’s dirge. I thought it a bit disappointing, member for Brennan, in your contribution that you do not support the Cash for Containers Scheme with the committee. But there are many challenges out there we need to take on board, and it is best if we do it in a positive frame of mind. I want to work with the member for Nelson and the minister to tackle those. That is how we are going to get a great outcome here, and it would be really good if the opposition and the member for Brennan came on board but, obviously they are not there at this stage. Maybe after these statements are finished they might come across or might come across eventually, but at the moment they do not support it, and that is disappointing.
Container Deposit Legislation Cash for Containers or the Bottle Bill as it is known in the United States - I note that New York now has a bigger, better Bottle Bill - but the idea of getting money for recycling, for picking up someone else’s rubbish, is a simple idea that works well, not just in South Australia, but many places around the world. Litter is a big issue in the Territory. There are spots in my electorate that suffer from litter and my electorate is not alone in having this problem. While litter is an issue in the Territory, so is landfill, as it is everywhere, and we still do not have a great recycling culture. These are all issues which can be addressed through a Cash for Containers Scheme. It is not the silver bullet, but it does go along way to tackling all these issues. As I have already mentioned, with the minister and the member, I am on the reference group and we headed down to South Australia recently to check out their collection depots and their super collectors and talked with some of their experts down there, the EPA, which the member for Nelson and the minister mentioned, as well as the people at the pointy end who are collecting the cans.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I notice that we have come to 9 pm. I urge that the arrangements described by the Speaker earlier on today be exercised in favour of the member for Fannie Bay.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Mr GUNNER: Everywhere we went we had to convince people we were serious about doing Cash for Containers in the Territory. In South Australia they are used to a lot of people coming through who are thinking about it, and doing another study. Despite being told in advance that we had already jumped that hurdle, and had decided that we are doing it, the question now is how. They still needed to be convinced in person and, when they were, as the member for Nelson mentioned, there was a queue of volunteers lining up to come here and help us implement it because they are passionate about it. They are passionate about it because in South Australia it works.
Cash for Containers helps reduce litter in South Australia. It reduces the amount of material which goes into landfill and creates a better culture of recycling all types of things, not just cans and bottles. I have a few statistics here from the South Australian EPA Zero Waste website. South Australia recovers at least one-third more aluminium cans than other states where collection is influenced by the market value of the metal. South Australia recovers 85% of non-refillable, glass, soft drink bottles compared to 36% nationally. South Australia recovers 84% of cans marketed in the state, compared with 63% nationally. The return rate for plastic soft drink containers, PDT, is 74%, while the national return rate is 36%. Liquid paper …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, I take it you are going to 9.10 pm, which you are absolutely entitled to do?
Mr GUNNER: I can continue my remarks at a later date.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely up to you.
Mr Elferink: I was urging that you be given the 10 minutes …
Mr GUNNER: I am happy to …
Madam Deputy SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, if you take the 10 minutes then that will be all the time you can have. You cannot ...
Mr GUNNER: I am not entirely convinced I will only go for 10 minutes, so I would prefer …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely your call.
Mr Elferink: Oh I see. Well, back to you, mate.
Mr GUNNER: I appreciate what you are doing but I will end now, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being past 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the item of business before the Chair is adjourned. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about the Ministerial Statement on Container Deposit Legislation as part of my adjournment debate. It was a very good statement. It is probably one of the better statements I have heard. The minister is a no-nonsense, action minister who talks about the way things really are. Like the member for Brennan, I hope this is not just a media release where the government says we are trying to shore up Green preferences without actually doing anything. I am a person who thinks CDL will go along way to making some positive changes in the Territory, especially in terms of litter. I hope the member for Brennan is included on the committee to try to bring forward CDL at a more expedient date.
There has been a lot of negativity in Alice Springs with the Alice Springs Town Council introducing its liquor litter levy which will tax Alice Springs residents a substantial amount of money to fund a temporary scheme to attempt to fund pick up of alcohol cans, such as VB cans. Whilst council should be commended for doing something in light of the Territory government’s failures, the approach is uneconomical and it attacks businesses, landlords and all Alice Springs residents because rates will go up as a result of it. The people who pay rates are not necessarily those who litter, so it is negative.
I urge the Northern Territory government to bring on the CDL as fast as possible, recognising that there are impediments and I encourage the Environment minister to work as quickly as possible to get CDL to the Territory. If the Northern Territory government was fair dinkum about daily control of litter in the Northern Territory, they would fund the municipal councils, particularly Alice Springs and Katherine, so they can run their own Cash for Container schemes until CDL is rolled-out across the Northern Territory.
In 2006, the Northern Territory government gave Alice Springs Council $10 000 to run their trial Cash for Containers program. It was a huge success with hundreds of thousands of cans and bottles collected during the life of the trial, which was about three months, until the money ran out. It is a no-brainer that if this was delivered on a much larger scale, say to the tune of $200 000, it would have an immediate impact on container litter in Alice Springs. The infrastructure is already in place to remove the containers.
Alice Springs already has some companies which could easily be contracted to take the containers down south. The only new infrastructure required would be a collection point, a depot, somewhere in town. $200 000 would be a minimum; council has suggested it would need approximately $350 000. Either amount would make a significant impact on container rubbish in Alice Springs. The proposal could well be self-financed in the long run.
If Alice Springs Town Council was given $200 000 to run the program, that will be a $200 000 saving on current litter control measures. In turn, that $200 000 saving could be put directly back into the community and, in turn, that would be less money the council would require from the Northern Territory government in local government grants for things such as litter collection. The scheme would also create a quasi-labour force and would most definitely see an immediate impact on container litter in Alice Springs. As for the council’s plans, I have again publicly criticised it on air, and in the paper, as recently as today. I have defended businesses and I have defended Alice Springs residents who will get another tax hit as a result of the failure by this Northern Territory government.
In no uncertain terms the council’s plan is flawed. It is not outlets which are dumping the litter on our streets and parks. It is those who are too lazy and selfish to walk 10 m to put their rubbish in the bin. The council is effectively saying the 12 outlets are responsible for the litter in Alice Springs. That is 12 local businesses where the money stays in town. Meanwhile, the multinationals like KFC and Subway get off scot-free. In a nutshell, while the council’s planning is harebrained, the Northern Territory government must act now and fund the council with an annual grant so they can roll-out CDL across the Territory.
I congratulate the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and the council for trying to do something in light of the failures of this Northern Territory government to bring in CDL to help clean up our town, improve recycling, and have a greener approach to the Northern Territory.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk briefly during my five minutes in regard to the proposed CDL. Like many people in this Chamber I, too, grew up in Darwin and had great delight in collecting Coke bottles and soft drink bottles, particularly at the football matches. So much so, that we became like vultures in our youth and used to hover around the adults whilst they drank their soft drinks, waiting for them to give us the bottles.
There are a couple of key points I would like to make. One, in the course of moving towards developing legislation, I see reference in the minister’s statement to setting up a reference committee. I have no issue with that in regard to my colleagues in the Chamber being involved, but I would like to see people other than parliamentarians involved in a reference committee. Specifically, I am talking stakeholders such as industry - retailers, manufacturers and wholesalers of soft drinks and beverages and alcoholic drinks - to ensure they are included in any decisions with regard to a move towards legislation. I believe it is excellent legislation. I believe it will work and will be a major contributor to our litter prevention programs which will then lead to hygienic programs, particularly in remote communities.
I notice in the statement the minister thanked people who have been advocates and campaigners for Container Deposit Legislation, in particular the Keep Australia Beautiful Council and the previous Executive Officer, Lorna Woods, who was a staunch advocate for CDL, both with this government and the previous Country Liberal government. I know at times she felt very frustrated that many promises were undertaken by all sides of politics, but nothing much yielded. It probably brings her, as a person and an advocate of this kind of legislation, a great deal of pride because, finally, we are moving towards getting CDL.
One other point I would like to make in regard to CDL and litter and keeping our roads clean is that, in any deliberations this government has on this legislation, I sincerely hope they include our Defence personnel at the Robertson Army Barracks area. The litter on Tulagi and Thorngate Roads from the Stuart Highway through to the Robertson Army Barracks area is an ongoing problem. Family members of mine have had issues with Defence stating quite publicly there is a litter problem there. Defence, I believe, has reacted badly in this regard and tries to abdicate responsibility for this rubbish and litter coming from Defence personnel.
Mr Wood: It is not all Defence.
Ms PURICK: It is fairly indicative it has come from Defence personnel. I, with other members of my family and members of the community, did embark on cleaning up this road on Clean Up Australia Day. When you pick up Red Bull cans, beer bottles, iced coffee containers, condom packets, cigarette boxes, Red Rooster and Kentucky Fried boxes and so forth, it is fairly obvious where this material has come from ...
Mr Wood: Lots of people use that road.
Ms PURICK: It has been put to me that it is probably all those naughty people from the northern suburbs using the back road going to a particular drinking establishment in the Palmerston area, but I do not believe that. I urge the minister and the government to involve Defence personnel at all levels to ensure they are part of the development of this legislation to the benefit of all the community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to share a wonderful part of my work as the Barkly MLA. In the course of my duties, I have had the privilege and honour of meeting and getting to know Mrs Ruby Reed of Tennant Creek. In one of our recent meetings, Ruby showed me a tattered paper copy of an oral history transcript recorded on 3 March 1990 in Tennant Creek by Francis Good. Ruby offered me the transcript to read and commented that her late husband, Mr Robert Reed, was also interviewed. However, the family had lost the transcript and, unfortunately, she could not supply me with another example of a family’s fascinating history as true Territory pioneers on the goldfields of Tennant Creek.
With Ruby’s permission and blessing, I conducted my own research into NT Archives to procure hard copies of both prized transcripts to present to Ruby and her family. I sincerely thank the staff of the Parliamentary Library Service, Northern Territory Library and the Northern Territory Archive Service for their support and professional work in locating and publishing copies of both transcripts for Ruby and Robert Reed, which I was proudly able to deliver last week. Respect your elders is an age-old standard, and one I value for many reasons and must echo the core values of our post modern communities. In terms of elders, Mrs Ruby Reed reflects not only a beautiful senior Territorian of Tennant Creek, but also a true pioneer and woman of the Barkly, who both inspires and mentors others through her wonderful life.
Ruby Reed was born in Jundah, Queensland on 28 November 1923, growing up on a remote cattle station before marrying in 1943, and moving to Tennant Creek in 1947. Ruby and her beloved husband, Robert Reed, became part of a pioneering spirit in what could be called Australia’s last gold rush, immersing them in what Ruby describes in her transcript as ‘a man’s town, a very rough town with more men than women’. In Tennant Creek, Ruby set up house in a black iron hut with a dirt floor. Hessian was used to divide the rooms and hessian water bags were hung to cool water.
Ruby embraced that pioneering spirit in Tennant Creek and the Territory, raising her five children in a frontier environment while maintaining an extensive program of community involvement in the Brownies, baseball, speedway, Country Women’s Association and the Senior Citizens over many years. Ruby is now one of our celebrated senior citizens, with the wisdom and knowledge that complements her kindness and compassion as one of the Territory’s best.
Good health and happiness, Ruby, and thank you for the opportunity of learning from your life and times in the outback. I look forward to the next exciting stage in your inspirational example as a celebrated Australian.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I call upon the Treasurer and the minister for Planning to fulfil a promise she has so far neglected to fulfil. That was a promise made to the small group of concerned residents at a meeting called by the minister, if memory serves me, on the site of the old Darwin Hospital about November last year.
The minister was asked a question during the course of that meeting, and the substance of that question was: ‘will you make the Mickey Dewar report available?’ The minister gave a cast iron guarantee that she would make the Mickey Dewar report available. For those members who are unaware of who Mickey Dewar is, she was the consultant engaged by government to do a review of the site, particularly from a historical perspective. I know that review was completed in a punctual fashion and, as I understand it, was submitted to the government on 18 December 2008. It is now time for the minister to make good on the promise she made to that meeting and make that report public in its entirety.
This minister promised an open approach on this issue to that meeting but, so far, since the report has been received, she has remained, as far as I am aware, utterly silent on the report and the information in it. It is high time the Treasurer of the Northern Territory and the minister for Planning stopped treating the people who live in Port Darwin as some sort of dogs who need to be kept in a box and denied access to information, particularly as she made a commitment to those people in a public forum that she would make the report available.
I have yet to see that report, and I am deeply concerned that the absence of that report bodes an ill wind for the old hospital site.
Whilst I have said publicly that I was not unattracted to the partial development of the site to pay for a park in the area, I am less than overwhelmed by the proposed design. My major criticism has been that the development is at the wrong end of the block. I am also aware submissions were made which suggested something else entirely – and I have already spoken publicly about that - an iconic building for largely Indigenous art purposes. I am very attracted to that.
The silence from this minister in relation to this matter has been deafening. So far we have seen nothing from the minister which gives me comfort that the so-called consultation process this minister promised to engage in with the people of Port Darwin, and Darwin as a whole, has any chance of happening. If this is an example of the consultative process - yes, I will have a public meeting, yes, I will promise to make the material available - but then say nothing at all, then the consultative process is flawed in a profound way.
If the government intends to develop the block in spite of what people are telling them, then do not bother with consultants and be honest about it. Just develop the block and cop the political pain, but do not trot out to public meetings, make promises to the people, raise expectations and then dash those expectations with thunderous silence which is now coming up to five months in length - probably close to six months.
I call upon the minister to make available the Mickey Dewar report unedited, in its complete state in accordance with the promise she made to the people of Port Darwin and the people of Darwin generally.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to say thank you to very special and beautiful people. On my three day tour through Nitmiluk Park and Katherine, Gregory National Park and Keep River I have met the most beautiful people - our Park Rangers. I thank these very special people for their hospitality, all the scones and cups of tea they made and thank our rangers from Katherine for taking me and my Chief of Staff, Mathew Fagan, on a beautiful ride from Katherine to Gregory National Park and Keep River. I will just name a few of those people: Chief District Ranger, Kristin Appel; Rangers, Rhys Arnott, Joey Buckerfield and Lisa Mumbin.
I also met with Lisa in Katherine and had dinner with Brian Hill from NT Bushfires Council, who is a wonderful person. These people commit so much of their lives to saving people and looking after our environment. On Nitmiluk Tours and Cruise I need to express gratitude to Norm Greenfield, Andrew McPhee, Phil Runyu and Diane Bowman.
I thank all those people at the Katherine Museum; they also gave us scones and cups of tea so were sconed out and cup of tea’d out for the whole journey through Katherine and Gregory National Park. It was beautiful meeting all these people, and I thank also John McNamara; and Eddie Webber, who took us out on that journey to Keep River, an absolutely wonderful person and committed to parks. I said my life after politics might be as a ranger sitting in one of these beautiful places like Keep River. Simon Hartley, Liana Brown and Cate Schmidt from Timber Creek, from Bullita, Richard Tunnicliffe, his wife, Jenni and children, Casey, who is a boy, Jessica and Shanelle. Jenni also gave us plenty of scones and cups of tea. And last, but not least Cameron Sharpe and his wife, Mel, and children, Oliver, Rubin and Isabella. We had a beautiful breakfast and lunch together at Keep River in front of the billabong, and thought how lucky Cameron is to be on Keep River in this beautiful country and sit in front of the billabong every morning and evening. I thank them all again.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I wish to update people on some matters of importance. Unfortunately, for my friends and me, tomorrow afternoon at 4 pm on Amy Johnson Drive is the funeral for our friend, Don Friend. It will be a very emotional time for me and all my friends, but the benefit of having such good friends is you can look after each other; I know that is what will happen.
This morning before parliament, I found myself cooking bchamel sauce, trying to help Sue, his wife, so she did not have quite so much to do - we managed to get there, and it tasted pretty good. These are the things you try to do for friends. Trying to cook white sauce in a suit is not bad.
This Saturday will be a much more enjoyable day. I will heading to Katherine, dropping into a few places on the way, which I have started to become quite accustomed to. We have the Katherine Country Music Muster there, which has built up a good reputation as an event to get to. If anyone is considering getting out of town for the weekend, you could do no better than head to the Country Music Muster in Katherine and have a great time. The music we now hear in our country stream is so diverse compared with what we traditionally heard back in the days of Slim Dusty, and because of that, so many more people can relate to the type of music we hear. They will be putting on a fantastic show. I am very much looking forward to it, and I know my colleague, the member for Katherine, is looking forward to it as well. We are going to have a great time there.
We will also see some polocrosse. I have not played polocrosse, but if they want me to have a go, I will have a go. I might come back with my arm in a sling. There are many sports and different activities in our regional areas that people need to be more aware of and take the time and say: ‘Let us have a look at that. Let us take the time to take our family down and see what else we can do to make our lives full of joy’. These types of events really do that. We are going to have a great time there this weekend, and be back for parliament next week.
I pick up on what was said before by the Arts minister about the Katherine Museum. I am very glad that she has been there, because it is a really lovely museum; it is a beautiful place run by some absolutely lovely people. I had the pleasure many months ago meeting them all and I cannot wait to go back as the day we were there we were very rushed and had many things to do. It is truly a lovely museum run predominantly by volunteers. There are many treasures hidden in the remote parts of our communities. Do take the time to have a look around and consider what is available when you are planning your weekend. Get out there with your families, and that includes the people from Drysdale; take a bit of a trip, Katherine is not far away. Have a look around at the different activities you can do with your family and enjoy some of the great Territory sights. The Territory is truly full of fantastic things to do and you can have an absolute ball with your kids. Or, with your lovely partner, get away from the kids and have a good time.
I am looking forward to it. I am looking forward to meeting people we have met in Katherine many times, and I am looking forward to having a great time with my colleague and some of his friends who, with his lovely wife, will be putting me up for the night. I look forward to it and I will be back here next week looking forward to a great time in parliament.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak some very kind words for a lovely ‘young’ couple in Katherine who today, 30 April 2009, are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. As we all know, it is a heck of a milestone to be able to reach 60 years of wedded bliss. In this day and age it is becoming more and more difficult to achieve those goals. Congratulations to Flip and Ingrid Phillips who have lived in Katherine for a very long time. Flip’s real name is actually Lindsay, but I do not think anyone has called Flip by his correct name for many years, perhaps not since he was a child.
Flip Phillips and his wife, Ingrid, are what can be termed as living pioneers. They moved to Katherine around the 1960s. They were heavily involved in agriculture in the region, and produced crops; they worked on new crops and, in fact, there is a crop of maize which was developed by Flip that he named after his wife. The name of that particular variety of maize is Ingrid.
Flip was also instrumental in the beginnings of the Katherine Show. It was he who encouraged a friend of his, Bert Nixon, to show his purebred Poll short-horned cattle. That is one of the rarer breeds nowadays because so many of the purebred cattle have disappeared and are now replaced by many crossbreeds. Flip owned a number of properties in Katherine, with his wife, and some of those places where he lived and worked are still there. For example, the Scout Hall in Katherine, as it was then, was owned by Flip. He and Ingrid are very fondly remembered in Katherine.
I acknowledge the Katherine Times for an article they did on Flip and Ingrid very recently. Ingrid said, and I quote from the newspaper: ‘Flip was the only man her mother would let her go out with’. Flip said: ‘She was a young girl who used to answer her dad back’. These are the lovely, innocent words of people of that era who spoke of each other very caringly. Flip said he was clean living compared to some of the other men around, and he gradually got used to her. You can imagine the constrained and very nice way in which people referred to each other in those days. The words we use these days really would not have fitted into the repertoire of those days.
It is true testament to the dedication and devotion of such a strong love and marriage that Flip and Ingrid have been able to make it to 60 years of marriage. I congratulate them wholeheartedly; it is one heck of a milestone to reach. They are both very highly regarded people in around the town of Katherine. In fact, I saw Flip recently; he was in the Anzac Day march perched in pride of place on top of one of our local vintage cars parading up the main street. Again, congratulations to them both. They are a testament to the type of people who go to the heart of the Katherine community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about the Anzac Day cricket match. This is courtesy of Lieutenant William Heck, who wrote this article for the Army newsletter. He headed it: ‘Where’s Dennis?’
It seems Anzac Day is quickly becoming awash with sporting traditions. In Melbourne the Pies played the Dons, while in Sydney the Roosters
played St George. Then there are also the long-established traditions of Two Up, race meetings and various other activities across the country
associated with this particular day Australians hold dear.
Cricket though is not generally associated with Anzac Day unless, of course, you live in the Northern Territory. Part of this evolving tradition is
the Litchfield President’s XI clash with an Army XI from Robertson Barracks in a Legacy charity match at the SCG (Strauss Cricket Ground).
It was even rumoured the great Dennis Lillee may make an appearance for the home team. Dennis failed to materialise, but the enthusiasm
didn’t, with the local side fielding a makeshift team of elderly men, women, children and a lone defector from the Army team (me).
The Army, unbeaten in all previous Anzac Day encounters, fielded a strong team of young, fit cricket enthusiasts, brimming with confidence.
The day started well for the Army with Brigadier Michael Krause bowling in full ceremonial uniform, knocking over three wickets for one run in
the first over. This may well have meant an early and embarrassing stumps for the locals, except this particular event has its own time honoured
rules in sync with its history.
The Strauss Cricket Ground, a registered heritage site, was cut from the bush by hand by members of the 27th Australian Infantry Battalion during
World War II. It is located alongside the Strauss Airfield and in the vicinity of another three World War II airfields and their various support facilities,
including air defence bunkers and shelters. The cricket ground was also used by serving Americans and local tradition allows the American flag
to take pride of place beside the Australian flag over the ground.
Local tradition also dictate the rules of the game. For example, the umpire’s decision is not sacrosanct and could be challenged through cash
donations to Legacy. The term ‘buying a wicket’ took on a far more literal meaning. Also, at various points on the field, targets in the form of
cut-out chooks were positioned, as well as larger square sponsors’ targets. Hitting a chook would result in a significant run penalty, but the
sponsors’ target offered a tidy cash prize.
After a slow start, the home side clawed its way to a competitive 30 over total of 8 for 202, with good scores from Catherine and Gerry’s brother.
Army came out swinging, and despite the home side buying several wickets, Army were cruising with 10 overs and 1 ball left to bowl.
On the last ball of the 20th over, the batsman hit a chook, signalling a turnaround in fortune and the game was up for grabs. The next nine overs
were an arm wrestle, as the Army batsmen, collecting two more chooks, fell behind in the run chase, needing 18 runs to win off the last over. The
first ball of the final over found the boundary, but the next ball was caught in the slips.
The Army’s pinch hitter strode to the wicket in a gallant attempt to steal back the game. The Litchfield captain immediately offered the umpire a
significant bribe, the batsman was declared not out and the pinch hitter walked off. However, the third ball had the batsman comprehensively
bowled and the pinch hitter pranced on again with 14 to get off only three balls.
The next ball was cracked well beyond the rope and it was now eight to win off two balls with the game in the balance. With the pressure on, the
veteran bowler found his mark, approached and delivered. Sensing glory, the Army batsman swung hard, missing the ball completely, and the
Litchfield President’s XI claimed a remarkable win and the trophy for the first time.
Although the result was unexpected, the game had raised hundred of dollars for Legacy and no one could deny they had fun. It was almost ironic
that a rag tag, thrown-together team had conquered a skilled slick outfit on the day that commemorates Australia’s fighting spirit. When you play
with the Anzac tradition and spirit, then who needs Dennis Lillee?
I would also like to read this letter that I saw in the Centralian Advocate since we are talking about chooks, and this is headed ‘Even Chooks Aren’t Safe’:
- Sir,
I am writing because of the petty theft that occurred in my back yard.
Some youths have stolen two of my 2-y-o daughter’s pet silky bantams. I have no doubt that they have ended up as food.
The police were helpful but I doubt they will ever get the culprits.
What’s wrong in this town? Do I really need to put my pet chickens in Fort Knox?
Only in Alice Springs your chickens get stolen as a source of food. Ridiculous!
It’s time the politicians started acting on loitering youths around town and clean up the streets.
Jochem van der Reijden
Alice Springs
And with that, I will say goodnight.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016