Ms CARTER - 2000-06-15
Could the Chief Minister advise what is this government’s attitude towards reconciliation?
Members interjecting.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem just interjected by saying the Chief Minister would not talk about it yesterday.
Mr Ah Kit: Yep, yep.
Mr BURKE: What happened in this parliament yesterday was an absolute disgrace and the Chief Minister quite rightly refused to entertain entering into that particular farcical debate.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: What we saw yesterday - I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is probably getting the same report card as my 13-year old at school. He is getting sent to the back of the room all the time because he is playing up with his mate. Between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy, they are carrying on in the same way as my young child and he is in trouble.
Mr Speaker, yesterday in this parliament we saw Labor play the race card. This is the party ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ‘Oh yes, we don’t want to hear that. All we want to do is play the race card. All we want to do is talk about you being racist. We don’t want to ever hear about the fact that we play the race card to our advantage every day of the week, every opportunity we have,’ and aided and abetted by the member for Arnhem who sits there and tries to purport in his speech that he speaks on behalf of Aboriginal people.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You join in the fraud. You join willingly in the fraud, and you think a black face in this Chamber gives you the authority ...
Mrs HICKEY: A point of Order, Mr Speaker!. I ask that you would ask the minister to direct his comments through the Chair rather than to the member for Arnhem.
Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. The Chief Minister should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem tries to suggest that somehow a black face in this Chamber gives him authority to speak on behalf of some section of Territorians when all of us here are Territorians.
Mr Ah Kit: You said they were all our voters.
Mr BURKE: They are all our voters. The member for Arnhem interjects again. He said that I said they are all our voters. Absolutely they’re all our voters. They are my voters and they are your voters. That’s the way we should approach any debate in this Chamber. What happened yesterday was the Labor Party of the Northern Territory playing the race card. They played it ...
Mr Ah Kit: You’re a joke.
Mr BURKE: Well, that’s Territorians. Okay, member for Arnhem, go back to sleep. The member for Arnhem has made his point on this debate - I’m a joke. Let Territorians who are listening to this debate make their own minds up.
This was the motion that was proposed by the Labor Party yesterday. It started off this way: ‘That in a spirit of reconciliation …’. What is a spirit of reconciliation? A spirit of goodwill, a spirit of agreement, a spirit of somehow getting some common agreement in this Chamber on what the motion would eventually result in as a result of our debate – that is what I think a spirit of reconciliation suggests. That motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition said, (a) , in a spirit of reconciliation ‘it acknowledges and acclaims the achievements of Aboriginal Territorians, particularly in the areas of arts, politics, sport, culture and business’; (b), ‘acknowledges these achievements are the result of personal and collective triumph of indigenous Territorians over significant adversity and disadvantage’.
A member: And you voted against it.
Mr BURKE: Then says – remember this is in the spirit of reconciliation ...
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The third part of the motion then says ...
Mr Ah Kit: Was not important enough for you.
Mr BURKE: Zip up, you have had your go. Zip up, back to sleep.
Mr Speaker, (c), the third part of the motion then says: ‘Condemns the Territory government for failing to deliver services to Aboriginal Territorians in the key areas of education, health and housing, thereby failing to support reconciliation at the most fundamental and practical level’. ‘Goodbye reconciliation’ the Treasurer says. Obviously no government will agree to that particular motion. But in the spirit of reconciliation the debate ensued with an amendment put forward by the member for Drysdale, and the government’s amendment was simply this:(a) no change; (b) no change; (c) amended to read: ‘Commends the Territory government for delivering services to Aboriginal Territorians in the key areas of education, health and housing, thereby supporting reconciliation at the most fundamental and practical level’.
In a spirit of reconciliation I understand that the opposition had every right to object to that amended clause. They had a very simple option allowed by the rules in this House. They simply had to move another amendment and strike out (c), and then this whole House could then have agreed on (a) and (b). But once the objective isn’t achieved, which is to play the race card, the Leader of the Opposition loses all interest in the debate. So what happened was when the motion was eventually put, after having ...
Mr Stirling: You didn’t even speak on it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy of circumstances yesterday.
MrBURKE: After having every opportunity to amend the motion to a point where (a) and (b) - and this side of the House had been discussing that - would have been accepted by all, we could have had a good motion to come out of this House in the spirit of reconciliation that applauded the efforts of Aboriginal Territorians. It is something that we could have all agreed to, but it is a classic example of the wedged politics that the opposition play. It is also a classic example of how lazy the Leader of the Opposition is. The member for Arnhem mentioned that I did not contribute to that debate.
Mr Ah Kit: No, you did not. In your words you said: ‘It was not a serious matter’. That is what you said.
Mr BURKE: It was not a serious matter that I would engage in - to play racist politics in this House - which was the substance and objective of that motion.
The additional indictment was the fact that when the Leader of the Opposition got up to speak she spoke about nothing and then nonsense, and the sort of nonsense she spoke about...
Ms Martin: You can say at least I spoke, you did not even bother!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘You did not even bother speaking’. I say again to Territorians, I do not engage in a racist debate and that is what this debate was all about.
I am interested in constructive and practical reconciliation, not the sort of charade that happens in this place with the motions that come forth from the opposition. When she did speak, when this lazy and incompetent Leader of the Opposition did speak, when cut-and-paste Clare had to try and find something to say, what does she do, she reached back into Hansard to find...
Ms HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to Standing Order 59, allusion to earlier debate. This standing order says, and I quote: ‘No member shall allude to any debate ...
Mr Palmer: There is no point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mrs HICKEY: I’m speaking. ‘No member should allude to any debate in the same session unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion’. The Chief Minister is straying from the question that was asked which was to do with reconciliation. He is alluding to yesterday’s debate in which he did not participate and I would ask you to direct his answer to the question.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If I were to rule in your favour then I would gag questions from the opposition over and over again on the same ground.
Chief Minister, I would ask you, though, to get on with the answer to the question which was the government’s policy on reconciliation.
Mr BURKE: Very quickly, Mr Speaker, when cut-and-past Clare had to contribute to the debate she reached back into the Hansard and she made the comparison between Murgon in Queensland and Port Keats, and why this government has not created a Murgon at Port Keats.
She has been through this charade before. I remind Territorians that the comparison with Murgon in Queensland is absolute nonsense. I say it because it exemplifies the ineptitude of anyone trying to discuss issues of concern in a community such as Port Keats. To suggest that Port Keats can be compared in any way with Murgon in Queensland, and because Port Keats does not have 2 primary schools, a secondary school, a hospital, a police station, an ambulance service, 3 banks, 2 hotels, 2 motels, 3 caravan parks, 3 restaurants and a 9 hole fully reticulated golf course, this government is somehow failing. Its actually got a French restaurant as well, which they would really like at Port Keats, I am sure. If anyone with any sense sat down and did a comparison between the fundamentals that affect a town established in Queensland in 1906 in the heart of the peanut growing belt in Queensland, servicing a shire of over 4000 people in one of the richest areas of Australia, and tries to suggest that somehow Port Keats in the remotest part of Australia is a direct comparison, that is an indictment on the ineptitude of that person to speak on Aboriginal issues.
Members interjecting.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem just interjected by saying the Chief Minister would not talk about it yesterday.
Mr Ah Kit: Yep, yep.
Mr BURKE: What happened in this parliament yesterday was an absolute disgrace and the Chief Minister quite rightly refused to entertain entering into that particular farcical debate.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: What we saw yesterday - I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is probably getting the same report card as my 13-year old at school. He is getting sent to the back of the room all the time because he is playing up with his mate. Between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy, they are carrying on in the same way as my young child and he is in trouble.
Mr Speaker, yesterday in this parliament we saw Labor play the race card. This is the party ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ‘Oh yes, we don’t want to hear that. All we want to do is play the race card. All we want to do is talk about you being racist. We don’t want to ever hear about the fact that we play the race card to our advantage every day of the week, every opportunity we have,’ and aided and abetted by the member for Arnhem who sits there and tries to purport in his speech that he speaks on behalf of Aboriginal people.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You join in the fraud. You join willingly in the fraud, and you think a black face in this Chamber gives you the authority ...
Mrs HICKEY: A point of Order, Mr Speaker!. I ask that you would ask the minister to direct his comments through the Chair rather than to the member for Arnhem.
Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. The Chief Minister should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem tries to suggest that somehow a black face in this Chamber gives him authority to speak on behalf of some section of Territorians when all of us here are Territorians.
Mr Ah Kit: You said they were all our voters.
Mr BURKE: They are all our voters. The member for Arnhem interjects again. He said that I said they are all our voters. Absolutely they’re all our voters. They are my voters and they are your voters. That’s the way we should approach any debate in this Chamber. What happened yesterday was the Labor Party of the Northern Territory playing the race card. They played it ...
Mr Ah Kit: You’re a joke.
Mr BURKE: Well, that’s Territorians. Okay, member for Arnhem, go back to sleep. The member for Arnhem has made his point on this debate - I’m a joke. Let Territorians who are listening to this debate make their own minds up.
This was the motion that was proposed by the Labor Party yesterday. It started off this way: ‘That in a spirit of reconciliation …’. What is a spirit of reconciliation? A spirit of goodwill, a spirit of agreement, a spirit of somehow getting some common agreement in this Chamber on what the motion would eventually result in as a result of our debate – that is what I think a spirit of reconciliation suggests. That motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition said, (a) , in a spirit of reconciliation ‘it acknowledges and acclaims the achievements of Aboriginal Territorians, particularly in the areas of arts, politics, sport, culture and business’; (b), ‘acknowledges these achievements are the result of personal and collective triumph of indigenous Territorians over significant adversity and disadvantage’.
A member: And you voted against it.
Mr BURKE: Then says – remember this is in the spirit of reconciliation ...
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The third part of the motion then says ...
Mr Ah Kit: Was not important enough for you.
Mr BURKE: Zip up, you have had your go. Zip up, back to sleep.
Mr Speaker, (c), the third part of the motion then says: ‘Condemns the Territory government for failing to deliver services to Aboriginal Territorians in the key areas of education, health and housing, thereby failing to support reconciliation at the most fundamental and practical level’. ‘Goodbye reconciliation’ the Treasurer says. Obviously no government will agree to that particular motion. But in the spirit of reconciliation the debate ensued with an amendment put forward by the member for Drysdale, and the government’s amendment was simply this:(a) no change; (b) no change; (c) amended to read: ‘Commends the Territory government for delivering services to Aboriginal Territorians in the key areas of education, health and housing, thereby supporting reconciliation at the most fundamental and practical level’.
In a spirit of reconciliation I understand that the opposition had every right to object to that amended clause. They had a very simple option allowed by the rules in this House. They simply had to move another amendment and strike out (c), and then this whole House could then have agreed on (a) and (b). But once the objective isn’t achieved, which is to play the race card, the Leader of the Opposition loses all interest in the debate. So what happened was when the motion was eventually put, after having ...
Mr Stirling: You didn’t even speak on it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy of circumstances yesterday.
MrBURKE: After having every opportunity to amend the motion to a point where (a) and (b) - and this side of the House had been discussing that - would have been accepted by all, we could have had a good motion to come out of this House in the spirit of reconciliation that applauded the efforts of Aboriginal Territorians. It is something that we could have all agreed to, but it is a classic example of the wedged politics that the opposition play. It is also a classic example of how lazy the Leader of the Opposition is. The member for Arnhem mentioned that I did not contribute to that debate.
Mr Ah Kit: No, you did not. In your words you said: ‘It was not a serious matter’. That is what you said.
Mr BURKE: It was not a serious matter that I would engage in - to play racist politics in this House - which was the substance and objective of that motion.
The additional indictment was the fact that when the Leader of the Opposition got up to speak she spoke about nothing and then nonsense, and the sort of nonsense she spoke about...
Ms Martin: You can say at least I spoke, you did not even bother!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘You did not even bother speaking’. I say again to Territorians, I do not engage in a racist debate and that is what this debate was all about.
I am interested in constructive and practical reconciliation, not the sort of charade that happens in this place with the motions that come forth from the opposition. When she did speak, when this lazy and incompetent Leader of the Opposition did speak, when cut-and-paste Clare had to try and find something to say, what does she do, she reached back into Hansard to find...
Ms HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to Standing Order 59, allusion to earlier debate. This standing order says, and I quote: ‘No member shall allude to any debate ...
Mr Palmer: There is no point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mrs HICKEY: I’m speaking. ‘No member should allude to any debate in the same session unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion’. The Chief Minister is straying from the question that was asked which was to do with reconciliation. He is alluding to yesterday’s debate in which he did not participate and I would ask you to direct his answer to the question.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If I were to rule in your favour then I would gag questions from the opposition over and over again on the same ground.
Chief Minister, I would ask you, though, to get on with the answer to the question which was the government’s policy on reconciliation.
Mr BURKE: Very quickly, Mr Speaker, when cut-and-past Clare had to contribute to the debate she reached back into the Hansard and she made the comparison between Murgon in Queensland and Port Keats, and why this government has not created a Murgon at Port Keats.
She has been through this charade before. I remind Territorians that the comparison with Murgon in Queensland is absolute nonsense. I say it because it exemplifies the ineptitude of anyone trying to discuss issues of concern in a community such as Port Keats. To suggest that Port Keats can be compared in any way with Murgon in Queensland, and because Port Keats does not have 2 primary schools, a secondary school, a hospital, a police station, an ambulance service, 3 banks, 2 hotels, 2 motels, 3 caravan parks, 3 restaurants and a 9 hole fully reticulated golf course, this government is somehow failing. Its actually got a French restaurant as well, which they would really like at Port Keats, I am sure. If anyone with any sense sat down and did a comparison between the fundamentals that affect a town established in Queensland in 1906 in the heart of the peanut growing belt in Queensland, servicing a shire of over 4000 people in one of the richest areas of Australia, and tries to suggest that somehow Port Keats in the remotest part of Australia is a direct comparison, that is an indictment on the ineptitude of that person to speak on Aboriginal issues.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016