Ms MARTIN - 1999-08-17
Labor wants Territory statehood but we know we only have one more chance to get it right or it will disappear off the political landscape indefinitely. It’s critical to the outcome of next year’s statehood vote that everyone understand precisely where the Chief Minister is headed. Territorians and Labor have consistently said the draft constitution should be written by Territorians for Territorians through a democratic people’s convention. If there is a majority ‘yes’ vote, will the draft constitution be written by Territorians?
ANSWER
It is a pity that in politics one of the first casualties is the truth. The Leader of the Opposition has developed that to an art form, may I say, when we look at the way the debate has gone and the misconceptions that have already arisen with regard to the statement I made for progressing the statehood issue.
It’s interesting to see where the opposition is coming from on this issue. To understand the logic in the opposition’s approach, one first has to go back to the ALP internal document which was produced after the overwhelming defeat of the opposition in 1997. As part of the confidential document, the strategy team of the ALP said this:
The strategy committee is to develop, in conjunction with bush members and candidates, an approach to detach Aboriginal voters from CLP …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I think the question was put quite specifically in terms of statehood. It didn’t beg a sledge on the opposition at all. We want the answers to these questions. We want to know exactly where the Chief Minister is headed with statehood. May I ask you to direct …
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chief Minister has, as I’ve said many times before, some leeway in answering a question.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I intend answering the question fully, and I intend answering in the way that it puts these things into context so that everyone knows exactly the logic of my argument. The internal ALP document said:
The strategy committee is to develop, in conjunction with bush members and candidates, an approach to detach Aboriginal voters from the CLP and minimise the effectiveness of CLP bush campaigning.
I expect to see during this sittings of the Assembly a number of questions on Aboriginal issues. The reason I expect to see that is that rumours are rampant that the member for Barkly will resign on Thursday. That being the case, that will provide …
Mrs Hickey: Don’t hold your breath!
Mr BURKE: The member for Barkly can quickly dispel that rumour by simply confirming the facts.
Mrs Hickey: I just have.
Mr BURKE: If I am correct, the opposition will ask a number of questions in order to run a by-election campaign in the bush that misquotes and misrepresents the CLP approach to statehood, interpreter services, health issues and various other issues, just as they have misrepresented us in the past. I mentioned last week in the Assembly the open letter to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, the author of that letter being the Leader of the Opposition, which is nothing but a total pack of lies. As I said, it bears the Leader of the Opposition’s signature.
With regard to the issue of statehood, after I made my statement …
Mr Toyne: Oh, we’re finally onto that, are we? Good. We’re listening. We want an answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: When you’ve finished mumbling, I’ll continue.
After I made that statement on statehood in the Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition went out to the NT News and other media organisations on Friday 13 August and said this:
He’s not accepting we sit down with Aboriginal Territorians and seriously discuss outstanding concerns … He basically doesn’t want to have a process where the Territory will go through all of the issues of statehood before the referendum.
I’ll refer in part to the speech I gave in the Assembly, because it is very important to understand exactly what I said in order to dispel some of the myths and mistruths that the Leader of the Opposition is running. Firstly, we accepted the recommendation that there be a public education campaign to inform Territorians about exactly what statehood means. I said in my comments:
The government acknowledges and accepts that an educational program throughout the length and breadth of the Territory can only add to Territorians’ knowledge and understanding of what statehood means, not only for the Territory as a whole but also for Territorians as individuals … It also is important that the public education program be dispassionate, balanced and informative …
There is no doubt that numerous misconceptions have been fostered throughout Aboriginal communities by those who have an agenda other than statehood. It is imperative that all Territorians know the facts, not the myths, of statehood … The attitudes created by these omissions must be redressed. For instance, the simple proposition put, that statehood equals loss of land and loss of culture, is clearly false. Such falsehoods must be corrected and any education program must have this as a central theme. Statehood should have no effect on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is an act of the federal parliament and can only be changed by the federal parliament. It is important that any education campaign enables the facts to be understood by all Territorians. These facts include whether the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is affected by a grant of statehood …
Aboriginal Territorians, like all Territorians, need to decide whether they want statehood or not. Once that threshold question has been answered, then any detail and process for attaining statehood can be considered. It is not the detail and the process that is important now, it is whether Territorians want statehood. That is important …
I believe that the overwhelming thrust of this report is that an education program is needed to provide Territorians with the knowledge and understanding of what a grant of statehood would mean to individual Territorians and the Territory as a whole.
Throughout my speech, the central theme was information, dispelling myths, to all Territorians. I went to great lengths to point out that, central to that theme, is education and the dispelling of myths to Aboriginal Territorians because they are an important part of the process and a very important bloc. Aboriginal Territorians need to understand that there is no threat to them in the process that statehood needs to go through.
As I have said on a number of occasions, it may be our wish and our want to develop a constitution in the Northern Territory in a vacuum, a constitution that would remain untouched and unsullied by any other hands except Territorians. That may be our wish, but the responsible attitude is to recognise the truth, that the Australian Constitution says under section 121 that a new state will only be admitted under terms and conditions as decided by the federal parliament. That is the fact. That is in the Australian Constitution.
What we therefore have to do is this: Educate Territorians - all Territorians including Aboriginal Territorians - as to the process that statehood will go through. Before we begin the process, my premise is, as I said in my speech, that there has only ever been one vote on statehood and that vote was ‘no’. So to work from the assumption that Territorians want statehood, I think, is entirely presumptuous.
What we should do is educate Territorians as to what statehood means to them. Part of that education campaign will dispel the myths and concerns that many Territorians including, most importantly, Aboriginal Territorians have with regard to issues such as how the Aboriginal Lands Right Act and the maintenance of culture could be affected. There is no doubt that many myths are being run out there.
I believe that a good, dispassionate, apolitical education campaign can prepare Territorians to answer the question: ‘Do you wish statehood progressed or not?’ I can’t understand for the life of me why the ALP would start off at the outset and vote against a simple education campaign. If we can then achieve a vote from Territorians that says, ‘Yes, we want statehood’, then it will be for Territorians – not for me, not for the Leader of the Opposition but for Territorians - to decide how we progress the issue from that point onwards.
I simply believe that we should be truthful in explaining to Territorians the simple facts of the Australian Constitution. To suggest to Territorians, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, that we can develop a constitution in the Northern Territory in a vacuum is entirely wrong. The federal government will be involved in one way or another. For some senators this will be the greatest opportunity in their lifetime to take part in the writing of a constitution for a new state in Australia. To suggest that that would not occur is quite wrong.
With regard to a democratically-elected constitutional convention, let me say this: In no way, and nowhere in my speech, have I said that that could not occur. I simply make the point that to my mind the best option would for us to consider the constitution in its total form as it is finely developed, as it goes through all stages. It doesn’t dispel the opportunity for Territorians to be involved at any stage of the process, but that will be for Territorians to decide - not for this Chief Minister. I hope that answers the honourable member’s question.
ANSWER
It is a pity that in politics one of the first casualties is the truth. The Leader of the Opposition has developed that to an art form, may I say, when we look at the way the debate has gone and the misconceptions that have already arisen with regard to the statement I made for progressing the statehood issue.
It’s interesting to see where the opposition is coming from on this issue. To understand the logic in the opposition’s approach, one first has to go back to the ALP internal document which was produced after the overwhelming defeat of the opposition in 1997. As part of the confidential document, the strategy team of the ALP said this:
The strategy committee is to develop, in conjunction with bush members and candidates, an approach to detach Aboriginal voters from CLP …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I think the question was put quite specifically in terms of statehood. It didn’t beg a sledge on the opposition at all. We want the answers to these questions. We want to know exactly where the Chief Minister is headed with statehood. May I ask you to direct …
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chief Minister has, as I’ve said many times before, some leeway in answering a question.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I intend answering the question fully, and I intend answering in the way that it puts these things into context so that everyone knows exactly the logic of my argument. The internal ALP document said:
The strategy committee is to develop, in conjunction with bush members and candidates, an approach to detach Aboriginal voters from the CLP and minimise the effectiveness of CLP bush campaigning.
I expect to see during this sittings of the Assembly a number of questions on Aboriginal issues. The reason I expect to see that is that rumours are rampant that the member for Barkly will resign on Thursday. That being the case, that will provide …
Mrs Hickey: Don’t hold your breath!
Mr BURKE: The member for Barkly can quickly dispel that rumour by simply confirming the facts.
Mrs Hickey: I just have.
Mr BURKE: If I am correct, the opposition will ask a number of questions in order to run a by-election campaign in the bush that misquotes and misrepresents the CLP approach to statehood, interpreter services, health issues and various other issues, just as they have misrepresented us in the past. I mentioned last week in the Assembly the open letter to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, the author of that letter being the Leader of the Opposition, which is nothing but a total pack of lies. As I said, it bears the Leader of the Opposition’s signature.
With regard to the issue of statehood, after I made my statement …
Mr Toyne: Oh, we’re finally onto that, are we? Good. We’re listening. We want an answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: When you’ve finished mumbling, I’ll continue.
After I made that statement on statehood in the Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition went out to the NT News and other media organisations on Friday 13 August and said this:
He’s not accepting we sit down with Aboriginal Territorians and seriously discuss outstanding concerns … He basically doesn’t want to have a process where the Territory will go through all of the issues of statehood before the referendum.
I’ll refer in part to the speech I gave in the Assembly, because it is very important to understand exactly what I said in order to dispel some of the myths and mistruths that the Leader of the Opposition is running. Firstly, we accepted the recommendation that there be a public education campaign to inform Territorians about exactly what statehood means. I said in my comments:
The government acknowledges and accepts that an educational program throughout the length and breadth of the Territory can only add to Territorians’ knowledge and understanding of what statehood means, not only for the Territory as a whole but also for Territorians as individuals … It also is important that the public education program be dispassionate, balanced and informative …
There is no doubt that numerous misconceptions have been fostered throughout Aboriginal communities by those who have an agenda other than statehood. It is imperative that all Territorians know the facts, not the myths, of statehood … The attitudes created by these omissions must be redressed. For instance, the simple proposition put, that statehood equals loss of land and loss of culture, is clearly false. Such falsehoods must be corrected and any education program must have this as a central theme. Statehood should have no effect on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is an act of the federal parliament and can only be changed by the federal parliament. It is important that any education campaign enables the facts to be understood by all Territorians. These facts include whether the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is affected by a grant of statehood …
Aboriginal Territorians, like all Territorians, need to decide whether they want statehood or not. Once that threshold question has been answered, then any detail and process for attaining statehood can be considered. It is not the detail and the process that is important now, it is whether Territorians want statehood. That is important …
I believe that the overwhelming thrust of this report is that an education program is needed to provide Territorians with the knowledge and understanding of what a grant of statehood would mean to individual Territorians and the Territory as a whole.
Throughout my speech, the central theme was information, dispelling myths, to all Territorians. I went to great lengths to point out that, central to that theme, is education and the dispelling of myths to Aboriginal Territorians because they are an important part of the process and a very important bloc. Aboriginal Territorians need to understand that there is no threat to them in the process that statehood needs to go through.
As I have said on a number of occasions, it may be our wish and our want to develop a constitution in the Northern Territory in a vacuum, a constitution that would remain untouched and unsullied by any other hands except Territorians. That may be our wish, but the responsible attitude is to recognise the truth, that the Australian Constitution says under section 121 that a new state will only be admitted under terms and conditions as decided by the federal parliament. That is the fact. That is in the Australian Constitution.
What we therefore have to do is this: Educate Territorians - all Territorians including Aboriginal Territorians - as to the process that statehood will go through. Before we begin the process, my premise is, as I said in my speech, that there has only ever been one vote on statehood and that vote was ‘no’. So to work from the assumption that Territorians want statehood, I think, is entirely presumptuous.
What we should do is educate Territorians as to what statehood means to them. Part of that education campaign will dispel the myths and concerns that many Territorians including, most importantly, Aboriginal Territorians have with regard to issues such as how the Aboriginal Lands Right Act and the maintenance of culture could be affected. There is no doubt that many myths are being run out there.
I believe that a good, dispassionate, apolitical education campaign can prepare Territorians to answer the question: ‘Do you wish statehood progressed or not?’ I can’t understand for the life of me why the ALP would start off at the outset and vote against a simple education campaign. If we can then achieve a vote from Territorians that says, ‘Yes, we want statehood’, then it will be for Territorians – not for me, not for the Leader of the Opposition but for Territorians - to decide how we progress the issue from that point onwards.
I simply believe that we should be truthful in explaining to Territorians the simple facts of the Australian Constitution. To suggest to Territorians, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, that we can develop a constitution in the Northern Territory in a vacuum is entirely wrong. The federal government will be involved in one way or another. For some senators this will be the greatest opportunity in their lifetime to take part in the writing of a constitution for a new state in Australia. To suggest that that would not occur is quite wrong.
With regard to a democratically-elected constitutional convention, let me say this: In no way, and nowhere in my speech, have I said that that could not occur. I simply make the point that to my mind the best option would for us to consider the constitution in its total form as it is finely developed, as it goes through all stages. It doesn’t dispel the opportunity for Territorians to be involved at any stage of the process, but that will be for Territorians to decide - not for this Chief Minister. I hope that answers the honourable member’s question.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016