Department of the Legislative Assembly

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

24 November 2009

71. Child Protection Workers

Ms CARNEY to MINISTER for CHILDREN and FAMILIES
    1. How many child protection workers were employed by the Department of Health and Families as at 31 October 2009? Under what classifications were they employed?

    2. How many child protection workers were employed by the Department of Health and Families as at 31 October 2008? Under what classifications were they employed?

    3. How many child protection workers were allocated to the intake team of the Child Abuse Task Force as at 31 October 2009?

    4. How many child protection workers were allocated to the intake team of the Child Abuse Task Force as at 31 October 2008?

    5. How many child protection workers were allocated to the child protection investigative component of the Child Abuse Task Force as at 31 October 2009?

    6. How many child protection workers were allocated to the child protection investigative component of the Child Abuse Task Force as at 31 October 2008?

    7. How many mobile child protection teams were in operation as at 31 October 2009 and where were those teams operating?

    8. How many mobile child protection teams were in operation as at 31 October 2008 and where were those teams operating?

    9. How many child protection workers were employed in the mobile child protection team as at 31 October 2009?

    10. How many child protection workers were employed in the mobile child protection team as at 31 October 2008?

    11. How many child protection workers were employed by region as at 31 October 2009?
      12. How many child protection workers were employed by region as at 31 October 2008?

      13. What is the turnover of staff for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 for each of the classifications of staff listed above?

      14. In respect to the notifications, which staff classification specifically deals with assessing the notifications? Are initial assessment undertaken by intake workers, if not, which specific category of staff assess notifications, how many were assessed in each region, and how many were assessed by each staffing position?

      15. What is the procedure used to assess a notification, is there a specific form or areas that are used to progress or not progress a notification?

      16. Has the department implemented all the recommendations of the review into the intake system conducted by a South Australian consultant? What were the recommendations and, if not all recommendations have been implemented, why not?

      17. What was the number of active cases as at 31 October 2009?

      18. What was the number of active cases as at 31 October 2008?

      19. How many notifications had not yet been investigated as at 31 October 2009?

      20. How many of these un-investigated notifications as at 31 October 2009 were older than 3 months?

      21. How many notifications had not yet been investigated as at 31 October 2008?

      22. How many cases had been substantiated but not yet investigated as at 31 October 2008?

      23. Please list, for each child protection worker, how many cases each managed or is managing as at 31 October 2009?

      24. Please list, for each child protection worker, how many cases each managed or is managing as at 31 October 2008?

      25. How many child protection worker positions are currently vacant as at 31 October 2009? Where are these positions located, and are those positions allocated to any particular component of the Child Abuse Task Force?

      26. Please provide a copy of any policy or departmental directions relating to the process of responding to notifications from health or social workers at any Northern Territory hospital?

      ANSWER

      1. Please see Attachment A.

      2. Please see Attachment B.

      3. The Central Intake Team (including the After Hours team) staff establishment at 31 October 2009 was 14.6. This excludes the Manager CAT/Central Intake position and administrative positions.

      4. The Central Intake Team (including the After Hours team) staff establishment at 31 October 2008 was 11.6. This excludes the Manager CAT/Central Intake position and administrative positions.

      5. CAT NORTH - Allocated – 6
        CAT SOUTH - Allocated – 3

      6. CAT NORTH - Allocated – 5
        CAT SOUTH - Allocated – 3

      7. One Mobile Child Protection Team – operational throughout the Territory (excluding Darwin and Palmerston urban region).

      8. One Mobile Child Protection Team –operational throughout the Territory (excluding Darwin and Palmerston urban region).

      9. Six.

      10. Four.

      11. Please see Attachment C.

      12. Please see Attachment D.

      13. Please see Attachment E.

      14.The Central Intake Team (CIT) has been established and is staffed by P1 and P2 level Community Welfare Workers who assess the information contained in each notification. Relevant information is gathered and documented with staff making recommendations to the Team Leader (P2) about whether the report should be investigated and the priority rating for the investigation.
        The Team Leader/Manager approves the outcome of the report.
        Reports are not allocated within CIT on a regional basis or analysed by receiving CIT staff member.

      15.The procedures for the gathering and assessment of information received as part of a child protection report are documented in the NTFC Care and Protection Policy and Procedures Manual. In summary, staff in CIT are guided by the definitions and supporting materials in the manual and, in particular, by the Initial Danger Assessment.
        As part of continuous improvement NTFC is introducing Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools that will be used to support decision-making in CIT. These tools will guide the decisions in relation to whether to investigate a child protection report and the priority for responding to that report.

      16.All recommendations are being adopted by NTFC through various processes, some of which were in place prior to the commencement of the review. Changes made in response to the recommendations have progressed at varying rates. Some key changes already progressed are:

      Increase in staffing at CIT (including new Team Leader position).

      Redevelopment of the intake function of the client information system through introduction of the Intake Event (addresses three recommendations).

      Introduction of SDM tools (addresses 10 of the recommendations).

      Development of support focused response options.
        The remaining recommendations in the review relate predominantly to efficiency issues within CIT. These will be addressed through a business process mapping exercise.

      17.There were 2027 open cases on the night of 31 October 2009. Please note, this is a count of all cases started prior to the specified date but not closed until after that date or still open. A table setting out the service type of each case is shown at Attachment F.

      18. There were 1897 open cases on the night of 31 October 2008. Please note, this is a count of all cases started prior to the specified date but not closed until after that date or still open. A table setting out the service type of each case is shown at Attachment G.

      19.Seven-hundred and eighty-five notifications that had been assessed as requiring an investigative response were pending investigation.

      20.As records are continually updated, it is complex to source this information. A range of data relating to timeliness is being compiled and will be considered as part of the independent public inquiry into the Northern Territory Child Protection System, as well as the Children’s Commissioner’s report under the Care and Protection of Children Act.

      21. As records are continually updated, it is complex to source this information. A range of data relating to timeliness is being compiled and will be considered as part of the independent public inquiry into the Northern Territory Child Protection System, as well as the Children’s Commissioner’s report under the Care and Protection of Children Act.

      22. A case can only be substantiated after an investigation.

      23.The definition of ‘Child Protection Worker’ throughout the answers to these Questions on Notice has included all operational staff involved in delivery of child protection services. This includes a wide spectrum of workers, from administrative support staff through to senior managers.
        For the purposes of Question 23, only Community Welfare Worker classifications (P1 and P2) have been included in the calculation of the case load at 31 October 2009. This approach has been used despite other classifications, such as Team Leaders, Managers and Aboriginal Community Workers, participating in case work from time to time or, indeed, temporarily carrying a case themselves. The primary function of these other positions is not case work, and hence they have been excluded from these calculations. The number carried by these other categories of workers will fluctuate from day to day.

        Regional data has been provided as individual worker data is not available. Please see Attachment H.

      24.At 31 October 2008, there were 1897 open cases and 81 Community Welfare Workers. Using the methodology outlined in the answer to Question 23, an average caseload figure of 23 can be determined. It should be noted, however, that other categories of staff, such as Team Leaders and Managers, may have also been allocated cases on a temporary basis. Individual and regional data is unavailable.

      25. Please see Attachment I.

      26.The NTFC Care and Protection Policy and Procedures Manual documents the procedures for responding to child protection reports.
        These procedures apply to all persons making reports to CIT and are not specific to any NT hospital.
        As noted above the key chapters of the manual in reference to Intake are chapters 3 and 7.
        ** Copies attached (to be supplied separately to the member for Araluen).
        Updates relating to amendments to S26 will be incorporated into the next release of the Policy Manual expected to occur in early 2010.


      16 February 2010

      76. Housing Management and Maintenance Costs

      Ms PURICK to MINISTER for PUBLIC and AFFORDABLE HOUSING

      As of 31 December 2009:

      1. Please advise, by postcode area, 0800, 0810, 0812, etcetera, the number of public housing properties in the Northern Territory, broken down further to property type by the number of bedrooms and style of dwelling.

      2. By postcode area and property type, what is the number of unoccupied properties?

      3. What is the amount spent, by postcode area, on public housing maintenance in 2009?

      4. What is the amount spent by the department in direct management of Northern Territory government Housing stock including the cost of inspections, leasing costs and general administration of the portfolio?

      ANSWER

      Please see Attachments A, B and C.

      77. Trade Missions Attended by Ministers and Others

      Ms PURICK to MINISTER for TRADE

      For the year 2008-09, could you advise the following matters:

      1. How many trade missions in total were undertaken to Asian countries, including China and India, by NT government ministers?

      2. What country did which minister visit and for how long?

      3. Why were the visits undertaken?

      4. Which government officials attended the ministers on the trips and why?

      5. What industry people attend which trip?

      6. Were reports done after each trip and if so, can a copy be obtained; if no reports were compiled, why not?

      7. What was the cost of each ministerial trip for the minister and accompanying government officials?

      8. How many conferences and events were attended by ministers, what country and name of the event?

      9. Which government officials from what departments attended conferences and events?

      10. Were summary reports done following attendance at the events and if so, can a copy be obtained and if not, why not?

      11. Does the NT government have a permanent presence in an Asian country and if so where and at what is the cost of the office?

      ANSWER

      Question 1:

      There were 12 trade missions undertaken to Asian countries by NT government ministers during the financial period 2008-09. In addition, there was a significant number of business/trade missions, either led or supported by various government agencies, to key Asian markets (including China, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam).

      Questions 2 to 10:

      A template has been prepared for written questions 2 to 10. Please refer to the following list of attachments for answers relating to these questions – Attachments A to L:

      No Date Country/Purpose of trip

      A 11 - 19 Oct 2008 Malaysia,

        Parliamentary Secretary
      on behalf of Minister for
      Tourism

      B 12 - 18 Oct 2008 China
      Minister for Asian
      Relations and Trade

      C 4 - 15 Nov 2008 China/Vietnam
      Minister for Primary
      Industries, Fisheries
      and Resources

      D 29 - 30 Nov 2008 Timor-Leste
      MP for Nhulunbuy on
      behalf of Minister for
      Sport and Recreation
      E 9 - 19 Jan 2009 China/Japan/USA
      Chief Minister

      F 15 - 25 Jan 2009 USA
      Minister for Tourism

      G 20 - 23 Feb 2009 Macau
      Minister for Sport and
      Recreation

      H 6 - 8 May 2009 Indonesia
      Minister for Tourism
      and Asian Relations
      and Trade

      I 7 - 17 May 2009 Indonesia
      Minister for Justice and
      Attorney-General

      J 10 - 16 May 2009 China
      Minister for Primary
      Industry, Fisheries and
      Resources

      K 12 - 20 May 2009 Vietnam/Singapore/
      Japan
      Minister for Asian
      Relations and Trade

      L 27 - 28 May 2009 Timor-Leste
      Chief Minister

      Question 11: See Attachment M.


      78. Public Housing Maintenance work

      Ms PURICK to MINISTER for PUBLIC and AFFORDABLE HOUSING

      For the year 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009:

      1. Could you please advise how many public houses were off line during this period for maintenance work?

      2. Could you break that figure into the following regions: Darwin region, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Wadeye and Nhulunbuy?

      3. Could you break that figure into type of housing in the afore-listed regions?

      4. Could you advise what percentage of work maintenance is carried out in the following categories in the regions:
        Plumbing;
        Electrical;
        Garden Maintenance;
        Structural;
        Carpentry;
        Fencing; and
        Roofing?

      ANSWER

      Please see Attachments A and B.


      80. Development Consent Authority

      Ms PURICK to MINISTER for LANDS and PLANNING

      For the 2008 and 2009 years, could you advise:

      1. How many times did the Development Consent Authority (DCA) meet in each year for each of the main regions of the Northern Territory, being Darwin, Litchfield Shire, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs?

      2. What was the total annual cost to hold DCA meetings in each year for each region?

      3. How many applications were received for each year by each region?

      4. How many applications were approved in each year by region?

      5. How many applications were dismissed for each year for each region?

      6. How many applications were withdrawn for each year for each region?

      7. How many applications were resubmitted for each region for each year?

      8. How many applications were received for rezoning for each year for each region?

      9. How many applications for rezoning were approved for each year for each region?

      10. How many applications for rezoning were dismissed for each year for each region?

      11. How many applications for rezoning were withdrawn for each year for each region?

      ANSWER

      1.
      DCA Divisions
      2008
      2009
      Alice Springs
      11
      11
      Tennant Creek
      2
      2
      Katherine
      2
      10
      Litchfield
      10
      15
      Palmerston
      8
      11
      Darwin
      12
      18

      Note: These figure do not include Out-of-Session meetings when matters are considered by the DCA without convening a formal meeting.

      2.
      DCA Divisions
      2008
      2009
      Alice Springs
      $ 27 918
      $ 14 348
      Tennant Creek1
      Katherine
      $ 5 160
      $ 6 196
      Litchfield2
      Palmerston
      $ 1 213
      $ 1 604
      Darwin
      $172 151
      $207 945

      Notes:
      1. Annual costs for Tennant Creek are included in Alice Springs.
      2. Annual costs for Litchfield are included in Darwin.

      The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

      Fortnightly meetings of the Darwin and Litchfield DCA divisions commenced in July 2009.

      3.

      DCA Divisions
      2008
      2009
      Alice Springs
      116
      144
      Tennant Creek
      4
      5
      Katherine
      36
      64
      Litchfield
      79
      96
      Palmerston
      101
      102
      Darwin
      469
      454

      Notes:
      The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

      The above figures are for development applications only. Other types of applications under the Planning Act are generally dealt with under delegation and are not considered at DCA meetings.
      The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

      4.
      DCA Divisions
      2008
      2009
      Alice Springs
      107
      127
      Tennant Creek
      4
      5
      Katherine
      36
      51
      Litchfield
      63
      62
      Palmerston
      96
      87
      Darwin
      438
      384
        Notes:
        The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

        The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

        5.
        DCA Divisions
        2008
        2009
        Alice Springs
        4
        3
        Tennant Creek
        0
        0
        Katherine
        0
        3
        Litchfield
        7
        4
        Palmerston
        3
        1
        Darwin
        5
        8

        Notes:
        The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

        The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

        6.
        DCA Divisions
        2008
        2009
        Alice Springs
        4
        2
        Tennant Creek
        0
        0
        Katherine
        3
        3
        Litchfield
        11
        4
        Palmerston
        4
        1
        Darwin
        12
        8

        Notes:
        The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

        The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

        7.
        No figures are available for this question. Once a development is withdrawn by an applicant it is no longer valid and any revised proposal is recorded as a new application.

        8.
        DCA Divisions
        2008
        2009
        Alice Springs
        6
        10
        Tennant Creek
        1
        0
        Katherine
        0
        2
        Litchfield
        4
        8
        Palmerston
        1
        12
        Darwin
        7
        21
          Notes:
          The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

          The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

          9.
          DCA Divisions
          2008
          2009
          Alice Springs
          2
          8
          Tennant Creek
          1
          0
          Katherine
          0
          3
          Litchfield
          2
          2
          Palmerston
          1
          2
          Darwin
          3
          17
            Notes:
            The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

            The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

            10.
            DCA Divisions
            2008
            2009
            Alice Springs
            1
            1
            Tennant Creek
            0
            1
            Katherine
            0
            1
            Litchfield
            0
            0
            Palmerston
            0
            0
            Darwin
            0
            1
              Notes:
              The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.

              The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).

              11.
              DCA Divisions
              2008
              2009
              Alice Springs
              1
              0
              Tennant Creek
              0
              0
              Katherine
              0
              0
              Litchfield
              0
              1
              Palmerston
              0
              0
              Darwin
              0
              0
              Notes:
              The above figures are for calendar year and will vary from figures previously reported to Estimates Committee and in the annual report, which are based on financial year.
              The above figures are extracted from the Integrated Land Information System (ILIS).


              27 April 2010

              82. Office of WorkSafe Programs

              Ms PURICK to MINISTER for JUSTICE and ATTORNEY-GENERAL

              In the Office of WorkSafe for the year 2008-09:

              1. What extra resources, in form of personnel and dollars, have been allocated to the Office of WorkSafe to manage the massive harmonisation program in relation to occupational health and safety regulation and management?

              2. Is the harmonisation program meeting agreed outcomes and what are the agreed outcomes? If not meeting the agreed outcomes, why not?

              3. How many positions are there in the Office of WorkSafe in total?

              4. How many positions are filled?

              5. How many positions are not filled and which ones are they?

              6. How many positions are currently being advertised and at what cost?

              7. How many investigations into safety breaches and/or accidents are under way by the Office of WorkSafe for all of the Northern Territory?

              8. How many of these investigations are in relation to either mineral leases, exploration leases or extractive leases, including extractive permits?

              9. How many of these investigations have led to prosecution?

              10. How many of the investigations led to a person, corporation or agency receiving fines, warnings or any other discipline under the legislation?

              ANSWER

              1. As at 30 June 2009, no extra resources were allocated.

              2. On 26 March 2008, Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed a broad and bold regulatory reform agenda, involving 27 regulatory reform areas. These reforms include national harmonisation of occupational health and safety (OH&S) laws.
                COAG agreed that its commitment to harmonisation would be reflected in an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), with model legislation to be developed and submitted to the Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council by September 2009.

                On 3 July 2008, ministers signed the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety (IGA),

                COAG also agreed to accelerate the implementation timetable by one year to 2011.

                The model legislation will consist of a model principal OHS Act, supported by model regulations and model codes of practice that can be readily adopted in each jurisdiction.
                The model act, which is publicly available on the Safe Work Australia website, meets the agreed COAG outcomes.

              3. As at 30 June 2009, there were 60 full-time established positions and four supernumerary positions

              4. As at 30 June 2009, 56 positions were filled.

              5. As at 30 June 2009, eight positions are not filled. They are:
                  T3 WorkSafe Officer
                  T3 WorkSafe Officer
                  T3 WorkSafe Officer
                  T3 WorkSafe Officer (Electrical)
                  T3 WorkSafe Officer (Electrical)
                  T5 Principal WorkSafe Officer (Electrical)
                  P2 Senior WorkSafe Engineer Mining
                  A04 Licensing Registrar.

                6. As at 30 June 2009, three positions were advertised, at a cost of $410.96.

                7. During the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 there were 12 new investigations arising from workplace fatalities.

                8. None of the 12 new investigations into fatalities occurring in 2008-09 were mining related.

                9. None of the 12 new investigations into fatalities had led to finalised prosecutions as at 30 June 2009. The Workplace Health and Safety Act provides for prosecution within three years.

                10. As at 30 June 2009, six of the 12 new investigations into fatalities had been finalised with a recommendation for no prosecution. The remainder were still under active investigation as at 30 June 2009.

                83. Mining Board Operations

                Ms PURICK to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRY, FISHERIES and RESOURCES

                In regard to the Mining Board for the 2009 calendar year:

                1. How many times did the Mining Board meet?

                2. Who was on the Mining Board for the year and how long are the appointments for?

                3. What was the attendance record for each member?

                4. What is the role of the Mining Board?

                5. Does the Mining Board have terms of reference and, if so, what are they? If not, why not?

                6. Who is the current chairman of the Mining Board and is that person paid a chairman’s sitting fee and, if so, how much?

                7. Are other members of the Mining Board paid a sitting fee and, if so, how much?

                8. Did the Mining Board undertake any reviews during the year and, if so, what did each review involve?

                9. If reviews were undertaken, what were the outcomes?

                10. Did the Mining Board undertake any investigations and, if so, what were the outcomes?

                11. Did the Mining Board refer any matter to the minister and, if so, on what matter?

                12. Did the minister refer any matter to the Mining Board?

                ANSWER

                1. The Mining Board is required by section 49(1) of the Mining Management Act to ‘… hold at least one meeting each year’. A Mining Board meeting was held on 4 August 2009.

                2. Ms Christine Charles (Chair), Mr Brian Hearne (Xstrata), Mr Brian Fowler (Arafura Resources), Ms Gillian Jan (Department of Resources (DoR), Ms Jennifer Parks (Cameco), Ms Sharon Wilson (Extractive Industry Association), Mr Michael Delosa (DoR) - who resigned in March 2009 on taking a position on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition.
                  Note: Mr Alan Paton had resigned in December 2008.
                  The current terms in office for Ms Charles, Mr Hearne, Mr Fowler, Ms Jan, Ms Parks, and Ms Wilson expires on 31 December 2010.

                3. Mr Fowler was the only apology for one meeting in 2009.

                4. The board’s role is determined by the Functions and Powers prescribed at section 50 of the Mining Management Act
                  ‘Functions and powers of Mining Board

                  (1) The functions of the Mining Board are –
                    (a) to advise or report to the Minister on matters relevant to mining activities and their management, including the following:
                      (ii) best practice in mining activities inside and outside Australia;
                      (iii) consistency of legislation, guidelines and competencies inside and outside Australia;
                      (iv) levels of competencies required by persons in respect of specified mining activities;
                      (v) competencies required by mining officers;
                    (b) to recommend guidelines to the Minister for his or her approval;
                    (c) to develop guidelines and other forms of assistance to persons involved in mining activities;
                    (d) to investigate and research matters relevant to mining activities and their management;

                    (e) to constitute a review panel for the purposes of Part 8; and
                    (f) other functions imposed by the minister or prescribed by regulations.’

                5. The requirements set out in section 50 provide terms of reference for the board.

                85. Mine Site Regulatory Regime

                Ms PURICK to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRY, FISHERIES and RESOURCES

                In regard to compliance requirements provided for under the Mining Management Act for mineral exploration sites, mining projects and extractive permits and extractive lease sites, for the 2008 and 2009 years:

                1. How many site visits were conducted for each year and which sites were visited and how many times per year?

                2. How many annual audits were undertaken in each year for all operating projects for all lease type to check the companies’ compliance with their submitted mine management plan?

                3. Which projects for all lease types were visited for annual audits for the 2008 and 2009 years?

                4. Which projects for all lease types did not receive an annual audit visit and, if not, why not?

                5. If an annual audit was not conducted with aforementioned projects, what other action was undertaken to ensure compliance with the project’s mine management plan?

                6. Following an annual audit visit, how many projects’ mine management plans were found not to be compliant and in what areas of the operations?

                7. How many warnings were issued and for what projects?

                8. For both years, how many reported incidents and accidents were received by the government for all lease types?

                9. What was the lost time injury frequency rate for industry for both years?

                10. How does this rate compare to the two previous years?

                11. How do the rates compare with other industries in the Northern Territory?

                12. With a new mine management plan, what is the average time for assessment from lodgement to granting an authorisation?

                13. What has been the upper time to assess a new mine management plan and, if it is in excess of 60 days, what have been the reasons?

                ANSWER

                1. A total of 221 site visits were conducted in 2008. This included 208 field inspections, 12 close-out visits and one audit.
                  The sites and number of visits for 2008 is outlined at Attachment A.

                  A total of 296 site visits were conducted in 2009. This included 288 field inspections, seven close-out visits and one audit.

                  The sites and number of visits for 2009 is outlined at Attachment B.

                2. Mine sites are monitored for compliance via field visits and inspections, and assessment of Mining Management Plans (MMPs) and supporting documents (such as consultants’ reports). Audits are undertaken where a more detailed consideration than would be achieved through a site inspection, is considered necessary.
                  One audit was undertaken in 2008 to monitor if the company was operating in accordance with its MMP.

                  One audit was undertaken in 2009 to monitor if the company was operating in accordance with its submitted MMP.

                3. The audit in 2008 was at the Ranger Mine operated by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) (Authorisation 0108-12).
                  The audit in 2009 was undertaken on Arnhem Project (exploration) operated by Cameco Australia Pty Ltd (Authorisation 0309-02).

                4. Territory sites are monitored for compliance via field visits and inspections, and assessment of Mining Management Plans (MMPs) and supporting documents (such as consultants’ reports). Details on audits are provided above.

                5. Field inspections are used to monitor compliance with the project’s MMP. As detailed in the response to Question 1, a total of 222 site visits and 296 site visits were conducted in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

                6. The audit completed in 2008 at the Ranger Mine operated by ERA found the following:

                Zero Category 1 non-conformances were identified.

                One Category 2 non-conformance relating to the management of land applications was identified; and

                Three conditional issues relating to training and awareness of the Radiation Management Plan, training and awareness of the Ranger Authorisation and monitoring of Pit 1 were identified.
                  The audit completed in 2009 at Arnhem Project operated by Cameco Australia Pty Ltd found the following:

                Zero Category 1 non-conformances were identified.

                Zero Category 2 non-conformances were identified.

                One conditional issue relating to statutory requirements was identified.

                One conditional issue relating to Cameco’s Weed Management Plan was carried over from 2008; and

                Four observational issues relating to Environmental Management System (SHEQ Policy Statement), Environmental Audits and Inspections, Flora/Fauna and Fire Management and Exploration Rehabilitation were identified.

                7. The Mining Management Act does not provide for the issuing of warnings to operators.
                  In accordance with section 62(e) of the Mining Management Act, Mining Officers have the power to ‘issue written instructions to the operator’.
                  Two written instructions were issued in 2008 for unauthorised mining activity in accordance with section 62 of the Mining Management Act. The written instructions were issued for the following projects:

                Howard River Lot 1 Sand Project operated by Berno Bros Pty Ltd (Authorisation 0167-02)
                  Cosmo Project formerly operated by Burnside Operations Pty Ltd (Authorisation 0045-03).
                    One written instruction was issued in 2009 for unauthorised activity in accordance with section 62 of the Mining Management Act. The written instruction was issued to the following project:

                  Sunday Creek Project operated by Dale Nevette Page (Authorisation 0171-03)

                  8. A total 37 environmental incidents were reported to government in 2008 in accordance with section 29 of the Mining Management Act.
                    A total 29 environmental incidents were reported to government in 2009 in accordance with section 29 of the Mining Management Act.

                  9. Workplace health and safety is regulated by NT WorkSafe in the Department of Justice.

                  10. See response to Question 9.

                  11. See response to Question 9.

                  12. During 2009 the average time for granting an authorisation was 70 days. The median was 59 days. The average is affected by several longer periods where operators have requested additional time to submit information or security.
                    The Department of Resources’ initial document review period allows 28 days for review by Mining Officers with appropriate experience. This may be shorter for small exploration or extractive operations. Requests for additional information give the operator a time frame of 30 days to submit. This information is assessed within two to 14 days depending on the complexity of the issues and the size of the site. Requests to submit security give the operator an additional 30 days to submit.

                  13. The maximum time to assess a new MMP and grant an authorisation was 151 days in 2009.
                    The main reasons for long time frames are requests for additional information not being submitted by operators within the specified time frame (30 days), requests from operators for extensions of time to submit additional information, securities not being submitted by operators in the requested timeframes (30 days), and requests from operators for additional time to submit securities. Another common hold-up is operators not submitting correct, original signed forms in a timely manner when requested.



                  ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT A


                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT B


                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT C


                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT D

                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT E

                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT F

                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT G

                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT H

                  QUESTION 71
                  ATTACHMENT I


                  QUESTION 76
                  ATTACHMENT A


                  QUESTION 76
                  ATTACHMENT B


                  QUESTION 76
                  ATTACHMENT C



                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT A
                  Page 1 of 2



                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT A
                  Page 2 of 2





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT B
                  Page 1 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT B
                  Page 2 of 3


                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT B
                  Page 3 of 3




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT C
                  Page 1 of 5




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT C
                  Page 2 of 5




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT C
                  Page 3 of 5




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT C
                  Page 4 of 5



                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT C
                  Page 5 of 5






                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT D
                  Page 1 of 2




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT D
                  Page 2 of 2




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT E
                  Page 1 of 3






                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT E
                  Page 2 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT E
                  Page 3 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT F
                  Page 1 of 3






                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT F
                  Page 2 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT F
                  Page 3 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT G
                  Page 1 of 2





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT G
                  Page 2 of 2





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT H
                  Page 1 of 2




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT H
                  Page 2 of 2




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT I
                  Page 1 of 2





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT I
                  Page 2 of 2





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT J
                  Page 1 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT J
                  Page 2 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT J
                  Page 3 of 3





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT K
                  Page 1 of 5





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT K
                  Page 2 of 5





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT K
                  Page 3 of 5





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT K
                  Page 4 of 5





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT K
                  Page 5 of 5





                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT L
                  Page 1 of 3




                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT L
                  Page 2 of 3

                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT L
                  Page 3 of 3



                  QUESTION 77
                  ATTACHMENT M



                  QUESTION 78
                  ATTACHMENT A


                  QUESTION 78
                  ATTACHMENT B

                  QUESTION 85
                  ATTACHMENT A


                  QUESTION 85
                  ATTACHMENT B
                  Page 1 of 2


                  QUESTION 85
                  ATTACHMENT B
                  Page 2 of 2
                  Last updated: 04 Aug 2016