Ms MARTIN - 1999-08-17
Does he agree that statehood should be something to which political leaders strive to develop a cooperative approach, and will he accept my invitation, extended to him …
Mr Lugg: You couldn’t lie straight in bed!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask for that to be withdrawn. The member for Nelson should know better. He is a minister of the Crown.
Mr SPEAKER: The minister should withdraw that.
Mr LUGG: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Will the Chief Minister accept my invitation, extended to him last week, to meet to explore fostering a cooperative approach to the statehood debate?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,I do agree with a cooperative approach. We can take that cooperative approach very simply, by agreeing that a dispassionate, apolitical educational campaign be conducted and agreeing that both political leaders withdraw - withdraw and get out of it.
But it is very hard to talk about a bipartisan approach when the opposition leader stands in the Chamber and says she will fight me every inch of the way, and goes out and peddles a whole heap of mistruths and totally misrepresents the speech I made in this House. The next day on Fred McCue’s show, the Labor leader said:
Denis Burke, without any discussion with the opposition, went into parliament last night and effectively dismissed four of those [recommendations].
I didn’t ‘dismiss four of those’ at all. I said very clearly in my speech that we would take this thing one step at a time. One of the recommendations that the Leader of the Opposition said I dismissed was clearly explained in the speech. The recommendation was that the Northern Territory government approach the Commonwealth government to ascertain whether a further referendum would be required to recommence the process of statehood. I said in my speech:
The Prime Minister has already made it clear to me that, while he still personally supports statehood for the Territory, in order for him to progress the matter it must be demonstrated that Territorians also want it.
In order to ascertain that, he requires a referendum to be conducted on that simple threshold issue. That was one of the recommendations, so I didn’t just dismiss it. I said it had been overtaken by clear events.
She went on to say that I said in the parliament that I am not going to make agreements with sectional interests in the Northern Territory. Now, I’ve demonstrated that I never said that at any point in my speech. In fact, I made a point of saying that central to the education campaign was the education of sectional interests such as the Aboriginal lobby. It is central to the education campaign.
She also said - this is a classic: ‘He said last night in parliament, “Let someone else write your constitution” ’. That is a total misrepresentation and is deceitful, as I have explained. I said in my speech we are on the horns of a dilemma and explained exactly what the dilemma was.
She then went on to say:
The Territory wants to have its own constitution and wants to write that constitution. We’re not going to sit here and have senators in Canberra tell us what’s going to be in our constitution.
Well, that’s all good, emotive stuff. It’s all good, shallow media hype. It’s good for your 15-second grab. But it’s not responsible. It’s not a responsible attitude for the pretender to the leadership of government in the Northern Territory to adopt. It’s not responsible, firstly, to say to Territorians that we are flicking this thing totally to Canberra. It is not responsible to say to Territorians that constitutional development in the Northern Territory is entirely the prerogative of Territorians.
We would wish that. I support our doing everything we can to ensure that we have maximum input from Territorians. But the simple fact is that under the Australian Constitution the Leader of the Opposition’s stand is not correct. Any leader, any pretender, anyone with a bit more substance than someone who gets her hair done every second day so that she looks better, would be responsible enough to explain to Territorians that simple fact, and be truthful.
Mr Lugg: You couldn’t lie straight in bed!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask for that to be withdrawn. The member for Nelson should know better. He is a minister of the Crown.
Mr SPEAKER: The minister should withdraw that.
Mr LUGG: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Will the Chief Minister accept my invitation, extended to him last week, to meet to explore fostering a cooperative approach to the statehood debate?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,I do agree with a cooperative approach. We can take that cooperative approach very simply, by agreeing that a dispassionate, apolitical educational campaign be conducted and agreeing that both political leaders withdraw - withdraw and get out of it.
But it is very hard to talk about a bipartisan approach when the opposition leader stands in the Chamber and says she will fight me every inch of the way, and goes out and peddles a whole heap of mistruths and totally misrepresents the speech I made in this House. The next day on Fred McCue’s show, the Labor leader said:
Denis Burke, without any discussion with the opposition, went into parliament last night and effectively dismissed four of those [recommendations].
I didn’t ‘dismiss four of those’ at all. I said very clearly in my speech that we would take this thing one step at a time. One of the recommendations that the Leader of the Opposition said I dismissed was clearly explained in the speech. The recommendation was that the Northern Territory government approach the Commonwealth government to ascertain whether a further referendum would be required to recommence the process of statehood. I said in my speech:
The Prime Minister has already made it clear to me that, while he still personally supports statehood for the Territory, in order for him to progress the matter it must be demonstrated that Territorians also want it.
In order to ascertain that, he requires a referendum to be conducted on that simple threshold issue. That was one of the recommendations, so I didn’t just dismiss it. I said it had been overtaken by clear events.
She went on to say that I said in the parliament that I am not going to make agreements with sectional interests in the Northern Territory. Now, I’ve demonstrated that I never said that at any point in my speech. In fact, I made a point of saying that central to the education campaign was the education of sectional interests such as the Aboriginal lobby. It is central to the education campaign.
She also said - this is a classic: ‘He said last night in parliament, “Let someone else write your constitution” ’. That is a total misrepresentation and is deceitful, as I have explained. I said in my speech we are on the horns of a dilemma and explained exactly what the dilemma was.
She then went on to say:
The Territory wants to have its own constitution and wants to write that constitution. We’re not going to sit here and have senators in Canberra tell us what’s going to be in our constitution.
Well, that’s all good, emotive stuff. It’s all good, shallow media hype. It’s good for your 15-second grab. But it’s not responsible. It’s not a responsible attitude for the pretender to the leadership of government in the Northern Territory to adopt. It’s not responsible, firstly, to say to Territorians that we are flicking this thing totally to Canberra. It is not responsible to say to Territorians that constitutional development in the Northern Territory is entirely the prerogative of Territorians.
We would wish that. I support our doing everything we can to ensure that we have maximum input from Territorians. But the simple fact is that under the Australian Constitution the Leader of the Opposition’s stand is not correct. Any leader, any pretender, anyone with a bit more substance than someone who gets her hair done every second day so that she looks better, would be responsible enough to explain to Territorians that simple fact, and be truthful.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016