Mr LUGG - 1998-06-16
Last week, the Labor Party again made it clear that Territorians will be subjected to unreasonable policies of intervention if the ALP comes to government at the next federal election. Most Territorians were alarmed to hear federal Labor leader Kim Beazley’s opinion on how and whether the Territory should even obtain statehood. Is the Chief Minister able to shed any light on this and does he share the concern of Territorians?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition does not invite Mr Beazley back to the Territory, I certainly shall. It was a spectacular performance on his part. I think he stayed in the Territory for a little over 24 hours. He managed to stay for 2 hours in Alice Springs, thus clearly he has a real interest in what happens in the Northern Territory. For him to come to the Territory on a flying visit, and make it very clear to Territorians that Labor Party policy on issues relevant to statehood and uranium mining are determined in another place, must have left Territorians wondering how hollow the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition are on statehood. Mr Beazley made it very clear that issues of this kind are determined at a national level. That certainly puts paid to the idea that the small group sitting opposite has some degree of independence or Territory affiliation. They are entirely at the beck and call of a federal leader who is able to come to the Territory on a 24-hour flying visit and turn them upside down.
I have no confidence whatsoever that the Labor Party has any commitment to statehood, based on what Mr Beazley said. As for his throwaway line about this Parliament House and the cost of its construction, and whether or not it should have been built in the first place, the Leader of the Opposition has conveniently forgotten that, as a senior minister in the Keating government, Mr Beazley was privy to the decisions of the Loans Council which facilitated its construction. Don’t let members opposite try to ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STONE: Members opposite should not try to rewrite history. As to whether the cost of this Parliament House could have built a railway, that simply demonstrates that she cannot do her arithmetic. It would have been a mere fraction of the cost of the railway which will cost in the order of $1200m.
I had expected the Leader of the Opposition to take the opportunity to reassure Territorians that the Labor Party is committed to statehood, because it is evident that Kim Beazley is not. It is evident that he will not give Territorians that support when the time comes. He was equivocal in what he had to say, he was unhelpful in what he had to say, and he put the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues back in their place when he said that these matters are determined at the national level, not in the Territory. Members opposite cannot pretend to be Territory Labor; they are federal Labor in every sense of the word.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition does not invite Mr Beazley back to the Territory, I certainly shall. It was a spectacular performance on his part. I think he stayed in the Territory for a little over 24 hours. He managed to stay for 2 hours in Alice Springs, thus clearly he has a real interest in what happens in the Northern Territory. For him to come to the Territory on a flying visit, and make it very clear to Territorians that Labor Party policy on issues relevant to statehood and uranium mining are determined in another place, must have left Territorians wondering how hollow the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition are on statehood. Mr Beazley made it very clear that issues of this kind are determined at a national level. That certainly puts paid to the idea that the small group sitting opposite has some degree of independence or Territory affiliation. They are entirely at the beck and call of a federal leader who is able to come to the Territory on a 24-hour flying visit and turn them upside down.
I have no confidence whatsoever that the Labor Party has any commitment to statehood, based on what Mr Beazley said. As for his throwaway line about this Parliament House and the cost of its construction, and whether or not it should have been built in the first place, the Leader of the Opposition has conveniently forgotten that, as a senior minister in the Keating government, Mr Beazley was privy to the decisions of the Loans Council which facilitated its construction. Don’t let members opposite try to ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Mr STONE: Members opposite should not try to rewrite history. As to whether the cost of this Parliament House could have built a railway, that simply demonstrates that she cannot do her arithmetic. It would have been a mere fraction of the cost of the railway which will cost in the order of $1200m.
I had expected the Leader of the Opposition to take the opportunity to reassure Territorians that the Labor Party is committed to statehood, because it is evident that Kim Beazley is not. It is evident that he will not give Territorians that support when the time comes. He was equivocal in what he had to say, he was unhelpful in what he had to say, and he put the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues back in their place when he said that these matters are determined at the national level, not in the Territory. Members opposite cannot pretend to be Territory Labor; they are federal Labor in every sense of the word.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016