Territory Coordinator

Dr RAHMAN (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, since being elected to government I have taken every opportunity to address all matters economic in this House repeatedly, noting that they have long been neglected by this parliament.   

I have spoken at length in support of the model for the Territory Coordinator, notably on 27 November. To reiterate in summary, major projects have been in a state of limbo for a long time. Regulatory inefficiency has undoubtedly played a part in that process. The intention of this Bill is to address these deficiencies in process and to improve our economic and industrial competitiveness, which I support in principle.  

Earlier my learned colleague the Treasurer referenced the Territory Economic Reconstruction Commission and the report written by that entity. This was the last comprehensive blueprint for economic development in the Northern Territory. It is an interesting document to reflect on when we are talking about a new way forward because large parts of that blueprint are testament to why we have a problem.  

There were five sections to that report. The first was about winning investment and requiring a strong strategic approach. That area was well fleshed out.  

The second area focused on the sectors that would drive growth. It talked about energy transition; decarbonisation and sustainable industry; manufacturing; resources; agribusiness; tourism; security and Defence; and the maritime, digital and space industries. These are things that we are all looking to systematically progress. 

The third area was about growth occurring in the regions in partnership with Aboriginal people, Aboriginal economic leadership and regional prioritisation.  

The fourth area of the report was about actioning the enablers to support investment—infrastructure systems; access to land, water, power and digital connections; logistics and supply chains; and regulation. 

The last section was about industry growth needing a skilled population.  

The problem with that blueprint was that sections 1, 2 and 4 were reasonably well thought out and well fleshed out, but sections 3 and 5 were basically threadbare, empty and only a couple of pages long, and testament to the fact there was not much of a strategy for how to provide a coordinated plan on major projects growth in the Northern Territory. 

The document also laid out a blueprint for a commission structure to try to expedite some of these processes, fast-track approvals and create regulatory efficiency. What was initially meant to be a single point of coordination with one commissioner ended up being three commissioners. We ended up going from a single source to coordinate and fast-track projects to having a tsar on major projects, a tsar on investment and a tsar on infrastructure. 

I raise these points because I know firsthand that the coordination between the objectives of the Territory Economic Reconstruction Commission report and the commissioners was, to put it mildly and politely, poor. I am intimately familiar with the Territory Economic Reconstruction Commission report and the commission’s structure as the precursor to the Territory Coordinator model. I know that because I returned to the Northern Territory 18 months ago to be the fourth commissioner. I returned here to try to create coordination and efficiency within that system because we do not have a single point of contact to coordinate workforce, skills, population, migration, talent acquisition and higher education. We lacked someone to look at the labour component.  

I would not ordinarily draw attention to this, but I do so today to establish my bona fides in this debate. That is to say, and hear me clearly, that I contend the status quo on project management is not working. That is my starting proposition, and that is why I offered my qualified support for the Territory Coordinator proposal from the outset, before the release of the Bill in its current form, back in November in relation to environmental protections. I believe we need to do things differently if we are to create a better regulatory environment for investment. At the moment we clearly have shortcomings in that area. That is the first substantive point I make.  

The second substantive point is important for everyone in this House to be mindful of. It is a more pointed point; it is a legal point. It is the prerogative of this parliament and the legislature to make law for the good governance of the Northern Territory, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Section 6 of the Act stipulates the legislative power of this body:  

Subject to this Act, the Legislative Assembly has power, with the assent of the Administrator or the Governor-General, as provided by this Act, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. 

I recognise the many concerns raised by members of the community and interested stakeholders in response to this Bill. As the Chair of the scrutiny committee reported this morning, the vast majority of submissions indicated concerns about the Bill. I can say, hand on heart, that I have read all the submissions to the scrutiny committee that are publicly available, and I read the subsequent majority report and the dissenting reports written by the member of the Labor Party and the crossbench member. Some of the concerns raised are alarmist and display a limited understanding of the legislation; however, equally, many valid concerns are raised as well throughout the course of the legislation. 

I am grateful that the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers have all provided suggested amendments to this Bill. The process we are meant to follow is to consider all those amendments with sincerity and at face value. I encourage the Assembly to take its responsibility seriously in this regard, noting that the government has a mandate to implement a law which has been widely forecast for a number of years, but about which there are a number of legitimate concerns. It is incumbent on all of us to take on board those concerns, consider all the amendments systematically and ensure that the law we put in place has the best possible chance of delivering on its intended outcome.  

With respect to what I said earlier in relation to the Self-Government Act, let me be clear that I am not a jurist and I am not a legal scholar; therefore, I defer to a higher authority in confirming my rationale for supporting this Bill.  

In submission 443 to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008 the President of the NT Law Reform Committee, Hon Austin Asche, pointed out the following. In relation to the power of the Legislative Assembly to pass the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act and its challenge and being upheld in the courts, he argued that this was the appropriate way to challenge such laws. I quote from the committee Hansard from 14 April 2008, at page 64: … the only proper way to attack the power of the Territory to pass that particular act was through the courts. That in fact was done by the application to the full court of the Supreme Court. That application was interrupted because the act was then repealed. But had it gone to the full length of an appeal to the High Court—although it may be temerarious to predict what the High Court will do—we feel that the High Court would probably have upheld the decision of the majority of the full court. The point we make is that that is the way to go. Either the Territory has the power, in which case it should be allowed to exercise it because it has been given self-government, or it does not have the power, in which case the court should so rule. 

It is not for me to adjudge whether this law constitutes executive overreach or is ultra vires. Vis-a-vis non-exhaustively section 12, ‘Powers, privileges and immunities of Legislative Assembly’, and section 31, ‘Extent of executive power’, of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 that is a matter only for the courts. I therefore confine my remarks only to the area of authority within my remit and provide my qualified support for the Bill as a member of the legislature and of the governing party whose prerogative it is to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory.