Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

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

WATER AMENDMENT BILL 1998

(This is an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available on the condition it is recognised as such.)

Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr PALMER (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Water Act in order that the definition of `tidal water' may more accurately reflect the intention of the legislature at the time of drafting that act in 1992. The definition of `tidal water' was intended to cover all marine - that is, saline-waters from the 3 nautical mile limit to the high water level on the coastal foreshore and in the coastal stream and river channels.

At first glance, the present definition of `tidal water' appears to do just that. It says that `tidal water' means:

water within the geographical area constituting the
Territory which is directly affected by the tide or coastal
waters of the Territory (within the meaning of the Coastal
Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 of the
Commonwealth) declared under section 5(6) to be tidal
waters for the purposes of this act.

The first part of the definition covers water in the Territory lying between the low water mark and high water mark. The second part covers coastal waters of the Territory to 3 nautical miles from the baseline. The difficulty lies with the second part of the definition.

Coastal waters of the Territory are limited to a breadth of 3 nautical miles from the established baseline, irrespective of the breadth of the territorial sea of Australia which extends to 12 miles from the baseline. While the greater part of the baseline is the low water mark along the coast, the remainder of the baseline consists of straight lines across mouths of rivers which flow directly to the sea, across bays and enclosing waters where the coastline is deeply indented or where there is a fringe of islands along the immediate vicinity of the coast.

Recently, my department had to look carefully at the definition because it was about to embark on a process leading to declaration of beneficial uses for selected parts of the Northern Territory's coastal waters. The areas in question included waters which did not appear to be covered by the current definition of `tidal water'. Because of this close scrutiny, counsel was asked to advise on whether areas intended to be covered by the declaration - that is, all marine saline waters from the 3 nautical mile limit to the high water level on the coastal foreshore and in coastal stream and river channels - would be encompassed. Counsel took the view that, while it was unlikely that the courts would interpret the definition narrowly, a strict literal interpretation of it would exclude those areas of water seaward of low water mark but within the limits of the Territory. Darwin Harbour itself is an example.

The amending bill makes it clear that the definition of `tidal water' clearly includes that area of water seaward of low water mark but falling within the limits of the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.

Mr BAILEY (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I will just clarify the change in legislation and whether the minister is tabling committee notes, an explanatory memorandum, with this bill, as the Chief Minister indicated would be ...

Mr Palmer: I am happy to give you a brief.

Mr BAILEY: I am not asking for a brief. I am referring to the change in the legislation to do with what is allowable in legal interpretation. My understanding, from a letter from the Chief Minister, was that it was to be suggested that ministers table this ...

Mr Palmer: You are supposed to move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr BAILEY: I know, but, I am asking a question at the moment. I move that the debate be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.


 

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