Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]


LAKE EYRE BASIN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BILL 2009

Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement Bill is to ratify the Northern Territory’s participation in the Lake Eyre basin Intergovernmental Agreement which is a joint undertaking of the Australian, Queensland, South Australian, and Northern Territory Governments.


The Territory signed the agreement in 2004 and has been an active participant in Lake Eyre Basin activities since then, working closely with communities in the region, with the assistance of world-class scientific and technical advice. The Lake Eyre Basin covers a very large part of Australia, approximately 1.2m km2, and lies within the jurisdiction of a number of states and territories. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure sustainability of the river system in the basin and in particular to avoid or eliminate cross-border impacts arising from use of water resources and related natural resources.


The rivers in the Lake Eyre Basin are very important globally, representing one of the world’s largest internally draining river systems, that is, the rivers drain inland rather than to the sea. Rivers such as the Georgina, Diamantina and the Cooper, are also ranked amongst the world’s last unregulated dry-land rivers, where the ecology continues to be sustained by highly viable flows, free of dams and other structures that restrict water flow. As a result, the basin contains areas of very high conservation significance. The basin is also important to people. Natural resources are used for pastoralism and mining, and are culturally very important to Indigenous people from many communities.


In the Territory, the basin includes the catchments of the Finke, Todd, Hague and Georgina Rivers, while major cross-border water flows derive from Queensland into Lake Eyre in South Australia. Significant flows do not occur from time to time out of the Territory and into Queensland and South Australia. The framework for this bill is based on existing legislation previously enacted by Queensland and South Australia that, together with the Commonwealth, were the original parties to ratify the agreement. The Territory is upstream of other states and has a responsibility to ensure any adverse natural resource management effects do not propagate downstream.


Good cross-border arrangements between agencies are already in place regarding most aspects of natural resource management. Membership of the agreement will ensure that this is maintained and made more effective. The Lake Eyre Basin Agreement and strategies have been used as a guide for cross-border aspects of the integrated natural resource management plans being developed. In all jurisdictions it is expected to contribute to cross-border integration into these plans. This bill is a clear example of the Northern Territory Government’s commitment to the protection and sustainable use of the Territory’s natural resources.


Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table explanatory statements to accompany the bill.


Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin):
Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to this bill. I know it is a very unusual step for a second reading speech to be presented before this parliament and then for debate to ensue forthwith. However, I do wish to address an issue that is of some concern to me all of a sudden, and it deals with this bill less than completely directly, but it is the letter which has just been tabled by the Speaker in relation to this bill, which, surprisingly, is an advice from the Administrator to this House that we can discuss what is essentially an appropriation bill.

Madam Speaker, I note that the letter that was tabled in this House was signed by the Chief Minister to His Honour, Mr Tom Pauling, AO, QC, the Administrator of the Northern Territory, seeking permission to pass an appropriation bill.


An appropriation bill is what we pass at budget with, and I, as the shadow Treasurer, have some concerns. I have spoken to the Treasurer about this issue very quickly; she was unaware that this letter had been tabled and that there was essentially an appropriation bill before this House, something I find extraordinarily surprising. I also found it surprising that when I spoke to the minister, behind the scenes, she was also unaware of an appropriation bill being bought before this House.


What concerns me is not that this is a (inaudible), there are good grounds why you would bring in a extra appropriation bill out of the budget cycle, and one of the reasons you would do it is if you were building something like a railway and you needed $160m-odd to have an –of-budget appropriation. But the requested amount for this appropriation is $10 000. and that makes me somewhat cautious, and although I am sure I have not been given all of the advise I sort, so far, from the Treasurer and the minister concerned, and there is probably advice to come, and I do note that the minister made some comments in relation to some sort of inter-governmental agreement, what I do not understand is why this government has to come into this Chamber with what is essentially an appropriation bill, and appropriate $10 000 only.


Madam Speaker, when we go through the budgetary process every year we give the Treasurer a Treasurer’s advance and that is a little extra money just in case of the up and downs of the parliamentary cycle, and the budgetary cycle will need to be met. The value of the Treasurer’s advance in the 2008-09 budget is $40m. It is interesting to note that we have an appropriation bill for an extra $10 000; surely she could reach for that $40m and find the $10 000 from there.


I also point out that under the
Financial Management Act, without coming back into parliament for a new appropriation bill, the Treasurer and the government of the day are capable of going to the Administrator and seeking a 5% blow-out in the appropriation, which means, off the top of my head without having the figures in front of me, there is a capacity for government to get an extra $180m, $190m in the current budgetary cycle without having to come back into this House.

Madam Speaker, the only conclusion I can currently draw, with the limited information that is available to me at the moment, is that the government is broke.


Members
interjecting.

Madam SPEAKER:
Order! Order!

Mr ELFERINK:
Well, why did you just drop this on the table and why does (inaudible). Let us see some explanations. This is part of the problem that I have with the way that you guys conduct government, you walk in here with tracks and I do notify know what is going on. We should have received advice of this letter at least 24 hours ago, or on Friday, not 10 seconds into the debate with the Speaker dropping it on the table and hoping that nobody would notice.

Madam Speaker, why have I been inherently suspicious of this arrangement? Why would I have my ears prick up when the Speaker drops a letter on the table from the Chief Minister and, when I read that letter find out that they are going to the Administrator asking for $10 000 extra cash out of the Central Holding Authority through an appropriation bill when they have nearly $200m capacity to side-step this process? That is why I am concerned, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, unless there is a clear explanation forthcoming, the only logical explanation that can be drawn from what is occurring in this House today, is that the government is broke.


Madam Speaker, I would like to know why are we appropriating $10 000 when we have a budget which is in the order of $3.5bn, off budget spent? I made some comments last week about the way that Cabinet do business and who they are quite happy to go through the budget cycle and put together a budget which then gets tinkered with and tinkered with, and tinkered with throughout the course of the year so what actually comes out at the other end of the year is almost unrecognisable, and now we have a Cabinet decision that which means that they are coming to parliament and asking for more cash.


Madam Speaker, it is up to the government to explain when they come into this place why they are passing legislation and seeking extra money, not to try and sniff it in under the radar and hope that no one notices.


Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s explanation in relation to this. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.


Leave granted.


Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to respond to the extraordinary outburst and tirade by the member for Port Darwin which, as usual, is way off the mark. The letter that the member for Port Darwin refers to is simply a procedural requirement under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he raised the question about the letter with me just some minutes before this debate and the introduction of the legislation in regards to Lake Eyre Basin Inter-governmental Agreement, it is confined within the requirements of the IGA that we proceed with a payment, a …

Mr Elferink:
You enter into these agreements all the time. You did not have an extra appropriation bill for the …

Dr Burns:
We listened to you in silence.

Mr Elferink:
Actually, no, you did not.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Order, order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting, please. Deputy Chief Minister, you have the call.

Ms LAWRIE:
He cannot help himself, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I explained to the member for Port Darwin when he first raised this issue of the letter with me in the corridor some minutes before the introduction of the legislation, it is a requirement of the inter-governmental agreement that the Northern Territory provides a payment of $10 000 per annum as a cash contribution. Clearly, we are not broke, we have plenty of cash. We are not in the dire straits the CLP were in when they were in government. As a backbencher, the member for Port Darwin probably is living in the shadows of that still.

This is not anything but a requirement under the terms of the
Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act section 11 that requires a recommendation in and around the provision here. It is not a appropriation bill. The bill before the House simply, as has been explained in the second reading speech, gives effect to the Lake Eyre IGA. If the member for Port Darwin remains confused, I will be happy, of course, to step him through it, yet again - that will make it the third time.

Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.


Leave granted


Debate adjourned.

 


[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]