Mr BALCH - 1998-02-19
Yesterday, he referred to the Federal Court's hearing of submissions from the Northern Land Council, claiming that native title exists on vacant Crown land that was previously covered by freehold. Have there been any further developments in this important hearing?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I have been disappointed by the lack of interest in this by members opposite. The member for Stuart can laugh, but what has been transpiring in the Federal Court tells its own story. The member for Arnhem can bag it all he wants. He has a vested interest in the truth not getting out. As a former director of the land council, he knows exactly what is happening over there with the argument being put that freehold title does not extinguish native title. I would have thought that, at the very least, members opposite would have sniffed the wind of change and recognised that this poses a real threat to ordinary Territorians.
Mrs Hickey: Which ones?
Mr STONE: The Leader of the Opposition asks which ones. I will tell her one. The one that was served up is called Oilnet, the supply base operator.
Mrs Hickey: That is rubbish.
Mr STONE: You can say it is rubbish. This is what counsel for Oilnet said yesterday in the court. I quote Mr Trevor Riley QC:
Of course, the effect of it all, your Honour, is to put Oilnet in the position, if an injunction is granted, that they will
have to either close up shop in the sense of stopping any further development, or alternatively buy out a claim
which appears to have no merit at all. And that, your Honour, may be the reason, one might cynically ask or
might state, for my client being a member or party to these proceedings and no one else.
It was conceded by the lawyer representing the claimants that the reason - and the member for Arnhem knows this - that they went after Oilnet was that there was a commercial advantage in it. It has nothing to do with affinity with the land. It has nothing to do with its being sacred to the claimants. It has to do with money: 'Pay us, and we will go away'. The Leader of the Opposition has asked for an example. I have given her an example - Oilnet, a local company that is now being faced with closure because these claimants have come along, with no merit and no argument. They simply want money. If it is about affinity with the land, if it is about a sense of sacredness, why is it for sale? They targeted Oilnet because they saw Oilnet as the rich picking down at the port site. The member of Arnhem can laugh. I would like to put him in a
Page 1
room with all the workers down there, and the people who have worked to create that business. I would like to see the member for Arnhem explain to them why their business is going to the wall.
Mr Rioli: Be honest.
Mr STONE: I am being honest. You are the ones who will not face up to what is being argued by the lawyer representing the NLC and by the indigenous working party ably assisted by none other than Warren Snowdon who now holds himself up to be the next federal member for the Territory.
Yesterday, we had the Leader of the Opposition on her feet with her hand on her heart saying how terrible it is that these sorts of issues get a public airing when there are elections in the Territory. Let me tell members opposite that we will continue to raise these concerns. We will continue to alert Territorians to the fact that their homes and their businesses are up for grabs. If they do not believe that ...
Mr Ah Kit: Rubbish!
Mr STONE: The member says it is rubbish. Members opposite do not have to ask me. All they need to do is drive down to the port site and ask the workers. Ask Arthur Hamblin. Ask the people whose very livelihood is now under threat. Ask them who is paying their legal fees. Who is paying the tens of thousands of dollars to defend them against native title claimants? They are. Who is paying for the claimants? Who is footing their legal bill? The taxpayer! That is how inequitable the whole system is. You break this company simply by getting it into court. You break it by making it spend tens of thousands of dollars defending these spurious claims. To top it all off, they tell the Oilnet people that, if they write out the cheque, they will go away. That is what it is all about - money! It is about a rip-off. It is about standover tactics, and it will not wash with us.
Mr Bailey: Couldn't you drive a manual, Shane?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I think we had enough instances yesterday where personal remarks were made. I will make sure we do not continue in that vein today. Keep your interjections short.
Page 2
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I have been disappointed by the lack of interest in this by members opposite. The member for Stuart can laugh, but what has been transpiring in the Federal Court tells its own story. The member for Arnhem can bag it all he wants. He has a vested interest in the truth not getting out. As a former director of the land council, he knows exactly what is happening over there with the argument being put that freehold title does not extinguish native title. I would have thought that, at the very least, members opposite would have sniffed the wind of change and recognised that this poses a real threat to ordinary Territorians.
Mrs Hickey: Which ones?
Mr STONE: The Leader of the Opposition asks which ones. I will tell her one. The one that was served up is called Oilnet, the supply base operator.
Mrs Hickey: That is rubbish.
Mr STONE: You can say it is rubbish. This is what counsel for Oilnet said yesterday in the court. I quote Mr Trevor Riley QC:
Of course, the effect of it all, your Honour, is to put Oilnet in the position, if an injunction is granted, that they will
have to either close up shop in the sense of stopping any further development, or alternatively buy out a claim
which appears to have no merit at all. And that, your Honour, may be the reason, one might cynically ask or
might state, for my client being a member or party to these proceedings and no one else.
It was conceded by the lawyer representing the claimants that the reason - and the member for Arnhem knows this - that they went after Oilnet was that there was a commercial advantage in it. It has nothing to do with affinity with the land. It has nothing to do with its being sacred to the claimants. It has to do with money: 'Pay us, and we will go away'. The Leader of the Opposition has asked for an example. I have given her an example - Oilnet, a local company that is now being faced with closure because these claimants have come along, with no merit and no argument. They simply want money. If it is about affinity with the land, if it is about a sense of sacredness, why is it for sale? They targeted Oilnet because they saw Oilnet as the rich picking down at the port site. The member of Arnhem can laugh. I would like to put him in a
Page 1
room with all the workers down there, and the people who have worked to create that business. I would like to see the member for Arnhem explain to them why their business is going to the wall.
Mr Rioli: Be honest.
Mr STONE: I am being honest. You are the ones who will not face up to what is being argued by the lawyer representing the NLC and by the indigenous working party ably assisted by none other than Warren Snowdon who now holds himself up to be the next federal member for the Territory.
Yesterday, we had the Leader of the Opposition on her feet with her hand on her heart saying how terrible it is that these sorts of issues get a public airing when there are elections in the Territory. Let me tell members opposite that we will continue to raise these concerns. We will continue to alert Territorians to the fact that their homes and their businesses are up for grabs. If they do not believe that ...
Mr Ah Kit: Rubbish!
Mr STONE: The member says it is rubbish. Members opposite do not have to ask me. All they need to do is drive down to the port site and ask the workers. Ask Arthur Hamblin. Ask the people whose very livelihood is now under threat. Ask them who is paying their legal fees. Who is paying the tens of thousands of dollars to defend them against native title claimants? They are. Who is paying for the claimants? Who is footing their legal bill? The taxpayer! That is how inequitable the whole system is. You break this company simply by getting it into court. You break it by making it spend tens of thousands of dollars defending these spurious claims. To top it all off, they tell the Oilnet people that, if they write out the cheque, they will go away. That is what it is all about - money! It is about a rip-off. It is about standover tactics, and it will not wash with us.
Mr Bailey: Couldn't you drive a manual, Shane?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I think we had enough instances yesterday where personal remarks were made. I will make sure we do not continue in that vein today. Keep your interjections short.
Page 2
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016