Mr AH KIT - 1998-08-19
The Chief Minister’s own Statehood Convention directed the Country Liberal Party government to conduct a 3-question referendum on statehood. The convention resolved that the people of the Territory should be asked:
1. whether the Northern Territory should become a state;
2. what the name of the state should be; and
3. whether the proposed constitution should be adopted.
Why has the Chief Minister adopted all the recommendations of this convention, his convention, except this one? He has accepted 58 of the 59. Why has he refused Territory people the opportunity to pass judgment on the proposed constitution?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from somebody who sat in the Statehood Convention, was a party to proceedings, actually voted for a number of the clauses that were included in the document, and then walked into this parliament and voted against the whole document. I might have prayed for this question to be asked by either the member for Wanguri or the member for Arnhem. Either way, it highlights the double-dealing of the Labor Party on this issue. The member for Arnhem and the member for Wanguri both sat in the Statehood Convention. They voted on resolutions. They voted in support of a number of them. They even proposed some of them.
They could ask that question with some credibility had they stood up last week and put amendments to the draft constitution or, at the very least, defended those parts of it of which they were the authors. How can they have any credibility now? I am confused because divergent views seem to be being expressed by the Labor Party. It is not unexpected, but I am confused about it. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said on the Morning Program today.
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arnhem asked a simple question. He asked the Chief Minister why it is that he has accepted every recommendation made by the Statehood Convention except the recommendation that a 3-part question to be put to a referendum on statehood and a constitution. Please direct the Chief Minister to answer that question.
Mr Stone: You don’t want to hear the quote.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr STONE: The reporter asked:
Isn’t this all about simplicity though? Referendums really are going to have problems, won’t they, if you make them too complex for people?
The Leader of the Opposition said:
I don’t think it’s very complicated, Fred. Yes to statehood - yes or no. The name, even. That one you could probably drop.
Thus, already she had reduced it to 2 questions. Did she tell her opposition spokesman that she had said that on air? This is how she concluded the interview. Listen to this:
But let me say that I am pretty easy and comfortable whichever way it goes.
If that sounds good, we heard Trish Crossin this morning as well. She was interviewed on the program and had this to say:
The issue about statehood should be run fairly quickly, as far as I am concerned.
The reporter said:
Well, you would like it to be run fairly quickly, and I don’t think you’re going to be able to avoid it, are you?
She continued:
I would like a guarantee from Shane Stone, you know, before the Assembly rises his week, that the question is simply going to be, ‘Do you agree that we should become a state?’, because,
at this stage, I think the preamble is a technicality. That is one question.
The member for Arnhem stood in here and asked: ‘What about the 3 questions?’ Yet the Leader of the Opposition has said on radio that we do not need to ask about the name of the state. She is happy with it and it is straightforward as far as she is concerned. Then there was the federal Labor senator on the radio this morning, saying that she will pop one question.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister was asked what he thinks about this. Standing orders say that he has to respond where he has responsibility, not where the opposition has responsibility.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Chief Minister, continue your answer.
Mr STONE: This opposition really stinks. This is the problem. It is comprised of 7 factions - 7 individuals all running in different directions. One is saying 3, one is saying 2. They have no credibility on this issue. The only way they could have had any credibility on this issue would have been if they had stood up last week and defended at least those parts of the constitution they either authored or supported.
Mr Bailey: Answer the question!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Wanguri!
Mr STONE: What did Labor members do in this Chamber? I hope all Territorians hear this. They voted down the constitution that was the work of the Statehood Convention of which they were a part! They have absolutely no credibility at all!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, you have interrupted a number of times with the same interjection. You are screaming again. You are now on a warning. You have been told often enough this week. Stop it. You know how you should be behaving. Refer to standing order 239 and do not back-answer.
1. whether the Northern Territory should become a state;
2. what the name of the state should be; and
3. whether the proposed constitution should be adopted.
Why has the Chief Minister adopted all the recommendations of this convention, his convention, except this one? He has accepted 58 of the 59. Why has he refused Territory people the opportunity to pass judgment on the proposed constitution?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from somebody who sat in the Statehood Convention, was a party to proceedings, actually voted for a number of the clauses that were included in the document, and then walked into this parliament and voted against the whole document. I might have prayed for this question to be asked by either the member for Wanguri or the member for Arnhem. Either way, it highlights the double-dealing of the Labor Party on this issue. The member for Arnhem and the member for Wanguri both sat in the Statehood Convention. They voted on resolutions. They voted in support of a number of them. They even proposed some of them.
They could ask that question with some credibility had they stood up last week and put amendments to the draft constitution or, at the very least, defended those parts of it of which they were the authors. How can they have any credibility now? I am confused because divergent views seem to be being expressed by the Labor Party. It is not unexpected, but I am confused about it. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said on the Morning Program today.
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arnhem asked a simple question. He asked the Chief Minister why it is that he has accepted every recommendation made by the Statehood Convention except the recommendation that a 3-part question to be put to a referendum on statehood and a constitution. Please direct the Chief Minister to answer that question.
Mr Stone: You don’t want to hear the quote.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr STONE: The reporter asked:
Isn’t this all about simplicity though? Referendums really are going to have problems, won’t they, if you make them too complex for people?
The Leader of the Opposition said:
I don’t think it’s very complicated, Fred. Yes to statehood - yes or no. The name, even. That one you could probably drop.
Thus, already she had reduced it to 2 questions. Did she tell her opposition spokesman that she had said that on air? This is how she concluded the interview. Listen to this:
But let me say that I am pretty easy and comfortable whichever way it goes.
If that sounds good, we heard Trish Crossin this morning as well. She was interviewed on the program and had this to say:
The issue about statehood should be run fairly quickly, as far as I am concerned.
The reporter said:
Well, you would like it to be run fairly quickly, and I don’t think you’re going to be able to avoid it, are you?
She continued:
I would like a guarantee from Shane Stone, you know, before the Assembly rises his week, that the question is simply going to be, ‘Do you agree that we should become a state?’, because,
at this stage, I think the preamble is a technicality. That is one question.
The member for Arnhem stood in here and asked: ‘What about the 3 questions?’ Yet the Leader of the Opposition has said on radio that we do not need to ask about the name of the state. She is happy with it and it is straightforward as far as she is concerned. Then there was the federal Labor senator on the radio this morning, saying that she will pop one question.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister was asked what he thinks about this. Standing orders say that he has to respond where he has responsibility, not where the opposition has responsibility.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Chief Minister, continue your answer.
Mr STONE: This opposition really stinks. This is the problem. It is comprised of 7 factions - 7 individuals all running in different directions. One is saying 3, one is saying 2. They have no credibility on this issue. The only way they could have had any credibility on this issue would have been if they had stood up last week and defended at least those parts of the constitution they either authored or supported.
Mr Bailey: Answer the question!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Wanguri!
Mr STONE: What did Labor members do in this Chamber? I hope all Territorians hear this. They voted down the constitution that was the work of the Statehood Convention of which they were a part! They have absolutely no credibility at all!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, you have interrupted a number of times with the same interjection. You are screaming again. You are now on a warning. You have been told often enough this week. Stop it. You know how you should be behaving. Refer to standing order 239 and do not back-answer.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016