Mr HATTON - 1999-10-20
In response to the Chief Minister’s plans for developing partnerships with Aboriginal people, debated yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said he could start by solving the Territory’s native title impasse. What is he doing to overcome this native title impasse?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the issue of native title is critically important to the development of the Northern Territory in terms of the debate on partnerships. I was interested in trying to find out what are the opposition’s remaining objections to the Northern Territory native title legislation, the section 43A scheme. It’s very important from my point of view. The opposition leader stands in this House and asks: ‘What are you doing about native title?’ What I am doing about native title is what I have done tirelessly for many, many months, and that is consult with the land councils, consult with the Democrats, speak with my federal counterparts, the federal Attorney-General and also Senator Hill, acting as a broker for the Northern Territory, to try to get some common sense into this debate so that we can get the Territory legislation through.
While the opposition leader calls on the Chief Minister to say what he is going to do about native title, the reality that Territorians need to understand is that native title is blocked by the federal ALP. The people caught in the middle of the sandwich are the Democrats, and our only chance of getting this legislation through is by dealing with the Democrats. It is the intransigent approach of the ALP federally that is blocking this legislation.
What makes the situation worse is that this legislation, with amendments, was approved unanimously by the Territory branch of the ALP in this House. Within days of that legislation being passed in this House, a disallowance motion was moved in the Senate by one Senator Bolkus. In response to that motion of Senator Bolkus, it was interesting in interviews in Darwin on 8DDD that the Territory Leader of the Opposition agreed with Senator Bolkus’s move. On 24 June 1999, she was asked by Julia Christensen:
So you are in there with Senator Bolkus’s move put before the Senate last night, a motion to disallow the Northern Territory native title legislation? Did you know about it?
Martin: Yes, I – look, what has happened federally is something that we agree with. We agree, and we were quite firm in the parliament that the legislation we have only goes so far.
Interviewer: Nevertheless, many Territorians would see the Labor move last night as a betrayal along the lines of the voluntary euthanasia laws.
Martin: Julia, it’s a delay. This is a delay.
Further, on 25 June the reporter said:
Territory Labor says the aim of the motion put forward by Senator Nick Bolkus this week is to encourage amendment.
Martin: Nobody is talking overturning legislation. Let’s get that quite clear and quite straight. This is an extension of time.
Having regard to the extension of time that the Labor opposition leader referred to, that Senator Bolkus asked for, the Northern Territory government made every accommodation we believe possible to ensure that legislation could then pass through the Senate.
There were at the end of the day 8 outstanding issues that the land councils said were ‘substantial issues of disagreement’, and while they remained this legislation would not pass through the Senate. The position of the Democrats is that if the land councils agree to the legislation, they will allow its passage. I understand from the Labor Party that if the land councils agree, they will allow its passage.
The 8 outstanding points of disagreement were discussed in a conference here which Senator Hill and Senator Woodley attended. At that conference Senator Hill’s final remarks were that in his opinion the issues were of no substance and he would relay that to the Prime Minister. In his opinion the Northern Territory government could go no farther by its own means.
There were 2 issues of substance which only the Commonwealth could address. One was the issue of security of the legislation. The other was the issue of dealing with the backlog and more resourcing for the land councils. But there are those 8 issues that perhaps the opposition leader still believes are of substance.
I will give a ministerial statement at the end of Question Time. I will go through those 8 issues point by point and I will explain to this House why the Territory government believes they are of no substance. That will provide the opportunity for the Labor leader to detail logically to me and to Territorians why they remain of substance in her opinion. Logically, that is the only reason they can still object to those amendments. I want her to explain that in detail to the satisfaction of this House, to the satisfaction of me and to the satisfaction of Territorians. And if she can’t do that, I want her to tell Territorians why the legislation should continue to be blocked.
That blockage to my mind is a straight betrayal. It is holding up development in the Northern Territory. It is critical to forming partnerships with Aboriginal people in the future. There is no logical reason why the legislation should not pass. The 8 outstanding issues are of no substance except for those 2 on which the federal government is earnestly trying to achieve agreement. I want to know what the opposition Leader’s real position is.
Ms Martin: You’re pathetic!
Mr BURKE: The opposition leader says I am pathetic. What I am asking for is no more than the ordinary Territorian would ask. If you are blocking legislation because you believe there are substantial issues with regards to that legislation that need addressing, stand up in this House and logically explain why. Then we can understand if there is any substance to it.
I see no policies. I see a lot of rhetoric. I see a lot of bagging of this side of the House. I hear a lot of comments like ‘You’re a ditherer’ one day, ‘You’re a hand-wringer’ the next day and ‘You’re arrogant’ the next day. That’s fine. That’s water off a duck’s back. What we want on this side of the House is logic - logical argument and substance and policy. Tell Territorians why, logically, you remain intransigent in blocking this legislation.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the issue of native title is critically important to the development of the Northern Territory in terms of the debate on partnerships. I was interested in trying to find out what are the opposition’s remaining objections to the Northern Territory native title legislation, the section 43A scheme. It’s very important from my point of view. The opposition leader stands in this House and asks: ‘What are you doing about native title?’ What I am doing about native title is what I have done tirelessly for many, many months, and that is consult with the land councils, consult with the Democrats, speak with my federal counterparts, the federal Attorney-General and also Senator Hill, acting as a broker for the Northern Territory, to try to get some common sense into this debate so that we can get the Territory legislation through.
While the opposition leader calls on the Chief Minister to say what he is going to do about native title, the reality that Territorians need to understand is that native title is blocked by the federal ALP. The people caught in the middle of the sandwich are the Democrats, and our only chance of getting this legislation through is by dealing with the Democrats. It is the intransigent approach of the ALP federally that is blocking this legislation.
What makes the situation worse is that this legislation, with amendments, was approved unanimously by the Territory branch of the ALP in this House. Within days of that legislation being passed in this House, a disallowance motion was moved in the Senate by one Senator Bolkus. In response to that motion of Senator Bolkus, it was interesting in interviews in Darwin on 8DDD that the Territory Leader of the Opposition agreed with Senator Bolkus’s move. On 24 June 1999, she was asked by Julia Christensen:
So you are in there with Senator Bolkus’s move put before the Senate last night, a motion to disallow the Northern Territory native title legislation? Did you know about it?
Martin: Yes, I – look, what has happened federally is something that we agree with. We agree, and we were quite firm in the parliament that the legislation we have only goes so far.
Interviewer: Nevertheless, many Territorians would see the Labor move last night as a betrayal along the lines of the voluntary euthanasia laws.
Martin: Julia, it’s a delay. This is a delay.
Further, on 25 June the reporter said:
Territory Labor says the aim of the motion put forward by Senator Nick Bolkus this week is to encourage amendment.
Martin: Nobody is talking overturning legislation. Let’s get that quite clear and quite straight. This is an extension of time.
Having regard to the extension of time that the Labor opposition leader referred to, that Senator Bolkus asked for, the Northern Territory government made every accommodation we believe possible to ensure that legislation could then pass through the Senate.
There were at the end of the day 8 outstanding issues that the land councils said were ‘substantial issues of disagreement’, and while they remained this legislation would not pass through the Senate. The position of the Democrats is that if the land councils agree to the legislation, they will allow its passage. I understand from the Labor Party that if the land councils agree, they will allow its passage.
The 8 outstanding points of disagreement were discussed in a conference here which Senator Hill and Senator Woodley attended. At that conference Senator Hill’s final remarks were that in his opinion the issues were of no substance and he would relay that to the Prime Minister. In his opinion the Northern Territory government could go no farther by its own means.
There were 2 issues of substance which only the Commonwealth could address. One was the issue of security of the legislation. The other was the issue of dealing with the backlog and more resourcing for the land councils. But there are those 8 issues that perhaps the opposition leader still believes are of substance.
I will give a ministerial statement at the end of Question Time. I will go through those 8 issues point by point and I will explain to this House why the Territory government believes they are of no substance. That will provide the opportunity for the Labor leader to detail logically to me and to Territorians why they remain of substance in her opinion. Logically, that is the only reason they can still object to those amendments. I want her to explain that in detail to the satisfaction of this House, to the satisfaction of me and to the satisfaction of Territorians. And if she can’t do that, I want her to tell Territorians why the legislation should continue to be blocked.
That blockage to my mind is a straight betrayal. It is holding up development in the Northern Territory. It is critical to forming partnerships with Aboriginal people in the future. There is no logical reason why the legislation should not pass. The 8 outstanding issues are of no substance except for those 2 on which the federal government is earnestly trying to achieve agreement. I want to know what the opposition Leader’s real position is.
Ms Martin: You’re pathetic!
Mr BURKE: The opposition leader says I am pathetic. What I am asking for is no more than the ordinary Territorian would ask. If you are blocking legislation because you believe there are substantial issues with regards to that legislation that need addressing, stand up in this House and logically explain why. Then we can understand if there is any substance to it.
I see no policies. I see a lot of rhetoric. I see a lot of bagging of this side of the House. I hear a lot of comments like ‘You’re a ditherer’ one day, ‘You’re a hand-wringer’ the next day and ‘You’re arrogant’ the next day. That’s fine. That’s water off a duck’s back. What we want on this side of the House is logic - logical argument and substance and policy. Tell Territorians why, logically, you remain intransigent in blocking this legislation.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016