Territory Stories

Debates Day 3 - Thursday 21 October 1993

Details:

Title

Debates Day 3 - Thursday 21 October 1993

Other title

Parliamentary Record 21

Collection

Debates for 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994

Date

1993-10-21

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/279555

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/418727

Page content

DEBATES - Thursday 21 October_1993 rehabilitate the whole cliff area'. Who is to pay for the rehabilitation? Will it be the Department of Transport and Works which let the original contract? Will it be the Conservation Commission? If it is, it will not be the commission that pays. It will be the taxpayer. Or is it to be the consulting engineering company? The 2 departments and the company should all have seen at the outset what could result from the actions they were about to take. The fact that this has had to be brought to the attention of the authorities by private individuals says something in itself. It demonstrates a complete lack of concern for the environment in this area by people involved in an official capacity and people who work in this field. When it was first brought to the attention of the Litchfield Shire Council, apart from myself, the council engineer went out, a representative of the council, Councillor Gerry Wood went out and a representative of The Litchfield Times, Jack Ellis, went out. Between us, I think we give a fairly representative opinion of the damage that has been done. When I spoke to a prominent person in the rural area about this today, he gave an unprintable description of the disgrace. He said that in no way did he think it the responsibility of the shire council to undertake any part of the rehabilitation work, and I concur with that view. We tend to think that people are very conscious of the need to look after the environment in our area. I know development has to go ahead. We know that there will be a subdivision at Gunn Point and nobody is objecting to that. However, some commonsense has to come into this. I do not know what will happen, but I have spoken to various people about it. Restrictions are put on us continually in relation to the ways in which we use land. I spoke previously about the rule in the Litchfield Shire about clearing more than 50% of a block. For anyone to do that, approval of a development application is required. Whilst I am in favour of that requirement in part, I recognise that it puts an added impediment in the path of horticultural development in the form of a $400 fee for the development application. We have a restriction like that placed on us, yet we are faced with activity of this kind. I cannot see the area being rehabilitated very quickly because the Wet is almost on us and, as soon as the first rains come, it will be a mammoth job to rehabilitate this area. I hope that the Conservation Commission can do something and I hope that the Department of Transport and Works will pull up its socks as well because, somewhere along the line, somebody has made a big boo-boo. Mr ORTMANN (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand tonight to address an issue that is raised persistently in this Assembly but that has not yet been brought to finality by the person who persists in pursuing it. It is an issue that the member for MacDonnell has been raising since 4 March. For 7 months, he has been leading this House to believe that I have sworn a false affidavit in the case in the Supreme Court brought on by Finnane in regard to the Hornsby subdivision decision. On Wednesday 19 May, the member for MacDonnell put a question to me in question time. He ended the question by saying: 'Ergo, Mr Speaker, his affidavit must be false. Does the minister accept that he swore a false affidavit?' As early as that time, I rejected the insinuation that I had. On 20 May, he raised the issue again and, after I had given a personal explanation to the House, the member rose to give a personal explanation of his own. He said on that day: 10 262