Mr ELFERINK - 1999-02-16
In the past the minister has made several allegations of intimidation made in an effort to change ...
Mr Toyne: Oh, please!
Mr ELFERINK: … individuals’ positions in relation to phasing out the bilingual programs. I am curious to know what evidence the minister has to support these allegations?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I noted that before the question had even been completely asked, the member for Stuart interjected. I think he was obviously giving some of the game away as to where some of the intimidation is coming from. I do welcome that he has now moved a little closer to this side, probably as close as he will ever get. But, at the same time, I do welcome the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions which he makes in this particular House, which I have struggled to do in the past, simply because he refuses to speak up.
We have a situation at the moment where the Department of Education is currently putting in place a wide range of decisions taken by this government that will see the education system through until well into the next century. It is not only changing a lot of the corporate structure of the department, but it is also changing the broad thrust and philosophy about much of the way we deliver education.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ADAMSON: One of the important things that we really need in this particular situation, and one of the things that we have said time and time again, is that we rely on and, in fact, demand and critically require, cooperation and partnerships - partnerships between government and the community, partnerships between teachers and students, and partnerships between students and their parents. If any of those links are severed in any way, we run into problems.
When we come to the situation of the bilingual education program, however, we have a situation where opponents of the government’s decision have yet to put up one legitimate argument against what we have done. In fact, of all the arguments they have put up, about 50%, at our last count, are based on misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the facts. That would be bad enough if it wasn’t for the fact there are people out there in the Aboriginal communities who share the decisions and share the belief in the decisions that we have made who have been intimidated and shouted down. This is one of the problems we have, quite frequently, when we come to debating some of these important issues in the Aboriginal sphere - the very people who often accuse us of being intolerant are intolerant themselves. They are intolerant of people of their own community sharing the same opinion.
Mr Toyne: Tell us who.
Mr ADAMSON: I will give one example because I pick up the comment as to who. We have had a situation where the Indigenous Education Council, our advisory council, which supported and backed the decision we made, was intimidated and shouted down ...
Mr Toyne: Where is the proof of that?
Mr ADAMSON: I will pick up on that. I was wondering how long I would talk before I could respond to an interjection like that, because I will show proof. I have an example here where people who share a view of this government, who have put their pen to paper to support this decision, have found themselves being shouted down and harassed to a point where they have had to change their public position. The member asks where is the proof? I am only too happy to provide that proof. I refer to the press release of the Indigenous Education Council NT, and I’ll start right at the back where we had a fax that came through from Yuendumu. Now, I wonder who in this Chamber has a connection there, Mr Speaker?
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr ADAMSON: It says: ‘The press release from the NTIEC sent to school councils yesterday has been retracted by chairperson Lana Quall. It seems that Lana was also not consulted ...
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This argument is going on and on. If the minister wants to go into great detail he can do a ministerial statement.
Mr SPEAKER: Once again, there is no point of order. The minister is responding to a comment by the member for Stuart. I would ask, however, that the minister conclude his answer as quickly as possible.
Mr ADAMSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start that particular comment again:
It seems that Lana was also not consulted even though her name was put on the press release. It is now imperative that the IEC reconvene, …. Please contact Lana …. and demand an immediate resolution to this matter’.
The very person who signed off on this press release was then harassed into changing her stance on this matter. We have in her own handwriting on the press release, additional sentences and themes that perhaps could be expanded on in the ultimate press release which went out. So not only did Lana Quall support the press release but in fact she wished it to go further and add further detail. I will table for the benefit of honourable members many of those comments that Lana raised which were, in fact, ultimately included in the press release.
What we then saw was the same person who had a contribution in this press release from start to finish then forced to publicly retract that comment. She did that because of the harassment tactics of those opposite and their colleagues. I simply say to those people, be tolerant for a change. You are the people who often are accusing others of being intolerant. Tolerate an opposing point of view. There is the fact, there is the proof that the member for Stuart asked for. I simply say to you that people like the member for Stuart stand condemned for leading a systematic system of harassment of their own supporters and people that oppose their own point of view. I think that is the most ultimate intolerance of all.
Mr Toyne: Oh, please!
Mr ELFERINK: … individuals’ positions in relation to phasing out the bilingual programs. I am curious to know what evidence the minister has to support these allegations?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I noted that before the question had even been completely asked, the member for Stuart interjected. I think he was obviously giving some of the game away as to where some of the intimidation is coming from. I do welcome that he has now moved a little closer to this side, probably as close as he will ever get. But, at the same time, I do welcome the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions which he makes in this particular House, which I have struggled to do in the past, simply because he refuses to speak up.
We have a situation at the moment where the Department of Education is currently putting in place a wide range of decisions taken by this government that will see the education system through until well into the next century. It is not only changing a lot of the corporate structure of the department, but it is also changing the broad thrust and philosophy about much of the way we deliver education.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ADAMSON: One of the important things that we really need in this particular situation, and one of the things that we have said time and time again, is that we rely on and, in fact, demand and critically require, cooperation and partnerships - partnerships between government and the community, partnerships between teachers and students, and partnerships between students and their parents. If any of those links are severed in any way, we run into problems.
When we come to the situation of the bilingual education program, however, we have a situation where opponents of the government’s decision have yet to put up one legitimate argument against what we have done. In fact, of all the arguments they have put up, about 50%, at our last count, are based on misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the facts. That would be bad enough if it wasn’t for the fact there are people out there in the Aboriginal communities who share the decisions and share the belief in the decisions that we have made who have been intimidated and shouted down. This is one of the problems we have, quite frequently, when we come to debating some of these important issues in the Aboriginal sphere - the very people who often accuse us of being intolerant are intolerant themselves. They are intolerant of people of their own community sharing the same opinion.
Mr Toyne: Tell us who.
Mr ADAMSON: I will give one example because I pick up the comment as to who. We have had a situation where the Indigenous Education Council, our advisory council, which supported and backed the decision we made, was intimidated and shouted down ...
Mr Toyne: Where is the proof of that?
Mr ADAMSON: I will pick up on that. I was wondering how long I would talk before I could respond to an interjection like that, because I will show proof. I have an example here where people who share a view of this government, who have put their pen to paper to support this decision, have found themselves being shouted down and harassed to a point where they have had to change their public position. The member asks where is the proof? I am only too happy to provide that proof. I refer to the press release of the Indigenous Education Council NT, and I’ll start right at the back where we had a fax that came through from Yuendumu. Now, I wonder who in this Chamber has a connection there, Mr Speaker?
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr ADAMSON: It says: ‘The press release from the NTIEC sent to school councils yesterday has been retracted by chairperson Lana Quall. It seems that Lana was also not consulted ...
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This argument is going on and on. If the minister wants to go into great detail he can do a ministerial statement.
Mr SPEAKER: Once again, there is no point of order. The minister is responding to a comment by the member for Stuart. I would ask, however, that the minister conclude his answer as quickly as possible.
Mr ADAMSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start that particular comment again:
It seems that Lana was also not consulted even though her name was put on the press release. It is now imperative that the IEC reconvene, …. Please contact Lana …. and demand an immediate resolution to this matter’.
The very person who signed off on this press release was then harassed into changing her stance on this matter. We have in her own handwriting on the press release, additional sentences and themes that perhaps could be expanded on in the ultimate press release which went out. So not only did Lana Quall support the press release but in fact she wished it to go further and add further detail. I will table for the benefit of honourable members many of those comments that Lana raised which were, in fact, ultimately included in the press release.
What we then saw was the same person who had a contribution in this press release from start to finish then forced to publicly retract that comment. She did that because of the harassment tactics of those opposite and their colleagues. I simply say to those people, be tolerant for a change. You are the people who often are accusing others of being intolerant. Tolerate an opposing point of view. There is the fact, there is the proof that the member for Stuart asked for. I simply say to you that people like the member for Stuart stand condemned for leading a systematic system of harassment of their own supporters and people that oppose their own point of view. I think that is the most ultimate intolerance of all.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016