Questions Day 1 - Tuesday 18 June 2002
Parliamentary Record 5
Question for 9th Assembly 2001 - 2005; Questions for 9th Assembly 2001 - 2005; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 9th Assembly 2001 - 2005
2002-06-18
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
English
Questions
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
Darwin
application/pdf
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/278918
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/419568
QUESTIONS -Tuesday 18 June 2002 Parks and Wildlife Commission - Future of Staff Mr ELFERINK to MINISTER for PARKS and WILDLIFE Minister, you announced that you are going to restructure Parks and Wildlife, in spite of the fact that you sacked the CEO at the beginning of the restructure. Employees listening to this broadcast want to know whether or not they will continue to be employed in their current jobs once that restructure is complete. Will you agree with your Minister for Employment, Education and Training who said Absolutely, when I asked him last year whether jobs were safe, in spite of the fact that he has since been... Members inteijecting. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, just wait a moment until everyone is quiet so we can hear your answer. ANSWER Madam Speaker, the member for Macdonnell should be forgiven for asking this question because he was not present this morning in this House. Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is not appropriate under standing orders to reflect on the presence or absence of members in this parliament. Madam SPEAKER: That is true. It is not good to reflect. Just get on with the answer to the question. Mr VATSKALIS: Let me rephrase that, Madam Speaker. The member for Macdonnell was not present this morning in this House and I would like to ... Members inteijecting. Madam SPEAKER: Just answer the question, Minister. Mr VATSKALIS: This morning I made a statement that no member of the Parks and Wildlife Commission would lose their job. One more thing I would like to advise the member for Macdonnell of, as I said this morning, the Dhector of Parks and Wildlife was not sacked. He was advised that his contract will not be renewed. We were obliged to advise that under the terms of his contract. It would not be fah not to tell him anything and then, three months down the track, he finds out he would not have a new contract. He has an executive contract and the contracts are not automatically renewed. I assure you that, pending the review and the restructure of Parks and Wildlife, no public servant will lose their job. I said that in the parliament, and I advise the members of Parks and Wildlife: no person will lose their job. Kenbi Land Claim and Land Use Objectives Mr WOOD to MINISTER for JUSTICE and ATTORNEY-GENERAL As part of his findings in the Kenbi Land Claim, Justice Peter Gray found that the 1990 land use concept and structure plans for Darwin, Litchfield, Cox Peninsula and other nearby areas were not valid planning and development objectives. He also ruled that the amending Planning Acts of 1993 and 1999 did not change the fact that the documents are not valid land use objectives. The former CLP government was appealing against that aspect of the Kembi findings but the Labor government has dropped that appeal. Can the minister tell us what the government is going to do now about these invalid land use objectives, and has this any repercussions for the siting of Phillips Petroleum in the centre of the harbour? ANSWER Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I first of all make it clear as to where my portfolio fits into this. Certainly, there has been a decision to discontinue the legal action challenging the validity or otherwise of that ruling by the Federal Court judge. This then leads us to the way in which we are approaching these land use issues, and that is that we will now be undertaking a detailed negotiation with the traditional owners, with the view to not only promoting the interests of the Territory as a whole and for the future needs of Darwin, but also to take account of the needs of the Larrakia people into the future. The aim of that process will be to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement. The detail of what will come out of that negotiation is really before us. Therefore, I cannot really comment on the specifics you have raised in your question. What I will say is that, after $20m being spent on litigation on this land claim over the longest period of running of any land claim in Australia, we are now moving, for the first time, into a constructive process where we can give certainty, not only to the Larrakia people, but to the people of Darwin and the Northern Territory. 255