Mr LUGG - 1998-08-19
First, Labor Senator Nick Bolkus refused to give a commitment that Labor would unequivocally support legislation securing statehood for Territorians. Then Warren Snowdon did likewise. Federal Labor Aboriginal affairs spokesman Daryl Melham told Territorians this week that Labor would not support statehood unless it was on Labor’s terms. Today, the Labor member for Wanguri told Territorians he supported statehood, but offered up lame excuses to explain why Labor will not support it. Why is it so hard for Labor representatives to give a straight answer on statehood to Territorians?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, do not start your answer while they are making this noise.
ANSWER
They are like a gaggle of geese, Madam Speaker.
It is a good question. I do not understand why Labor’s representatives cannot state unequivocally that they support statehood.
Mr Bailey: We have done, dozens of times.
Mr STONE: He cannot help himself.
Mr Bailey: If you intend to come in here and lie about what we say …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr STONE: I ask that that be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri will withdraw that statement.
Mr Bailey: I withdraw the statement because it …
Madam SPEAKER: Without further comment, thank you.
Mr STONE: It is a good question. It is impossible to obtain a straight answer from Labor. The tragedy for Labor is that, for 13 years, it was in government federally. It could have delivered statehood. The Labor Party could have marched into this Chamber with the support of the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and delivered statehood. It lost its opportunity. One is left to speculate as to whether Labor was ever really fair dinkum.
The member for Nelson made a reference to Senator Nick Bolkus, from South Australia. As the shadow attorney-general, with the carriage of legal matters, he holds considerable clout in the federal Labor Party. On the Drive Time program on 12 August, an interviewer asked him:
Senator Bolkus, could you give us a clear indication then of, nationally, Labor’s stance on statehood? Will Labor support the legislation if the proposal remains in its present form?
He gave a long and convoluted answer which led the reporter then to ask …
Mr Bailey: But you don’t support statehood unless you get it on your conditions. Read Hansard.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr STONE: The reporter was obviously not satisfied with the answer and asked:
I am still not clear. Is it yes or no if the proposal remains in its present form?
Again, Senator Bolkus rambled on. Again, the reporter came back and said …
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: I am sure Territorians listening to this broadcast are interested to know what this very influential Labor senator …
Mr Bailey: Read what he said.
Mr STONE: … had to say about our rights. If the member will be quiet, they will be able to hear. The reporter said:
Senator Bolkus, thanks for joining us. Senator Bolkus is the shadow minister for justice and shadow attorney-general. I think that was a no, but who knows?
He could not even satisfy the ABC interviewer!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: It does not end there.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, resume your seat. I warn members on my left again. Some among you will be sent out of the Chamber if you continue in this way. Your behaviour during these sittings has been very poor indeed. We will listen to the Chief Minister’s answer in silence.
Mr STONE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have the example of Daryl Melham, an ALP member from Sydney. He is a leader of the Socialist Left faction. It is also important to remember that it is out of his office that Warren Snowdon operates – Warren Snowdon, who works for the Central Land Council and the Indigenous Working Group, and has been put up by Labor as its candidate for the House of Representatives. This is what Mr Melham had to say at Kalkarindji:
Shane Stone can promise anything he likes. In the end, you will not get statehood unless you get all parties supporting it in Canberra. The Labor Party will not support a constitution that discriminates against Aboriginal people.
May I say that the CLP will not support a constitution that discriminates against Aboriginal people either. We will support a constitution that works for all Territorians. Again, I say to the opposition ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Stuart interjects, as does the member for Arnhem. Yet, when we debated the draft constitution in the parliament, not a single amendment was put forward by members opposite. They voted against it en masse, even though a number of the provisions actually matched what the sessional committee had put forward. How fair dinkum are members opposite? What a bunch of frauds!
In addition, the statement was made, and supported by Kim Beazley out of Canberra, that all of this will be contingent on the support of the minor parties. Let Territorians understand that the argument will be over if the Labor Party will stand with the Coalition in the Senate and support statehood. Why then is it so difficult to obtain an unequivocal commitment from the Labor Party federally and from the Labor Party in the Territory? The Labor opposition is a great disappointment. It opposed self-government and it is shaping up now to oppose statehood.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind ministers to keep their answers brief. They are becoming rather lengthy in these sittings.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, do not start your answer while they are making this noise.
ANSWER
They are like a gaggle of geese, Madam Speaker.
It is a good question. I do not understand why Labor’s representatives cannot state unequivocally that they support statehood.
Mr Bailey: We have done, dozens of times.
Mr STONE: He cannot help himself.
Mr Bailey: If you intend to come in here and lie about what we say …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr STONE: I ask that that be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri will withdraw that statement.
Mr Bailey: I withdraw the statement because it …
Madam SPEAKER: Without further comment, thank you.
Mr STONE: It is a good question. It is impossible to obtain a straight answer from Labor. The tragedy for Labor is that, for 13 years, it was in government federally. It could have delivered statehood. The Labor Party could have marched into this Chamber with the support of the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and delivered statehood. It lost its opportunity. One is left to speculate as to whether Labor was ever really fair dinkum.
The member for Nelson made a reference to Senator Nick Bolkus, from South Australia. As the shadow attorney-general, with the carriage of legal matters, he holds considerable clout in the federal Labor Party. On the Drive Time program on 12 August, an interviewer asked him:
Senator Bolkus, could you give us a clear indication then of, nationally, Labor’s stance on statehood? Will Labor support the legislation if the proposal remains in its present form?
He gave a long and convoluted answer which led the reporter then to ask …
Mr Bailey: But you don’t support statehood unless you get it on your conditions. Read Hansard.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr STONE: The reporter was obviously not satisfied with the answer and asked:
I am still not clear. Is it yes or no if the proposal remains in its present form?
Again, Senator Bolkus rambled on. Again, the reporter came back and said …
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: I am sure Territorians listening to this broadcast are interested to know what this very influential Labor senator …
Mr Bailey: Read what he said.
Mr STONE: … had to say about our rights. If the member will be quiet, they will be able to hear. The reporter said:
Senator Bolkus, thanks for joining us. Senator Bolkus is the shadow minister for justice and shadow attorney-general. I think that was a no, but who knows?
He could not even satisfy the ABC interviewer!
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: It does not end there.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, resume your seat. I warn members on my left again. Some among you will be sent out of the Chamber if you continue in this way. Your behaviour during these sittings has been very poor indeed. We will listen to the Chief Minister’s answer in silence.
Mr STONE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have the example of Daryl Melham, an ALP member from Sydney. He is a leader of the Socialist Left faction. It is also important to remember that it is out of his office that Warren Snowdon operates – Warren Snowdon, who works for the Central Land Council and the Indigenous Working Group, and has been put up by Labor as its candidate for the House of Representatives. This is what Mr Melham had to say at Kalkarindji:
Shane Stone can promise anything he likes. In the end, you will not get statehood unless you get all parties supporting it in Canberra. The Labor Party will not support a constitution that discriminates against Aboriginal people.
May I say that the CLP will not support a constitution that discriminates against Aboriginal people either. We will support a constitution that works for all Territorians. Again, I say to the opposition ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Stuart interjects, as does the member for Arnhem. Yet, when we debated the draft constitution in the parliament, not a single amendment was put forward by members opposite. They voted against it en masse, even though a number of the provisions actually matched what the sessional committee had put forward. How fair dinkum are members opposite? What a bunch of frauds!
In addition, the statement was made, and supported by Kim Beazley out of Canberra, that all of this will be contingent on the support of the minor parties. Let Territorians understand that the argument will be over if the Labor Party will stand with the Coalition in the Senate and support statehood. Why then is it so difficult to obtain an unequivocal commitment from the Labor Party federally and from the Labor Party in the Territory? The Labor opposition is a great disappointment. It opposed self-government and it is shaping up now to oppose statehood.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind ministers to keep their answers brief. They are becoming rather lengthy in these sittings.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016