Dr LIM - 1997-02-19
This morning's newspaper makes for interesting reading. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted in the NT News as saying that the ALP was united in opposing the Larrakia claim over Darwin. This is despite also supporting the right of the Larrakia people to lodge the claim. The minister has made a number of public statements on why the government opposes the claim and has given details of specific objections. How does the government's position compare with Labor's position?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think the government's position compares with Labor's position very starkly. We have demonstrated our opposition to this claim, the process that enables it, its scope and particular matters that pertain to it. Freehold land cannot be claimed under the native title legislation, but it has been. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cast aside the double standards that she has adopted. She took part in the debate yesterday. Her comments were recorded and she was very guarded in what she said. However, she tried to paint another picture publicly to give the impression that the Labor Party is opposed to the claim. It is not. Labor Party members are on the record as saying that they support the right of the Larrakia people to make the claim that they have made. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition says, together with her colleagues ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection.
Mr REED: Do not be so rude.
On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition says that the ALP does not support `the scope of the claim'. What does that mean? She has to come clean with Territorians. Either she supports the right of these people to lodge a claim or she does not. If she supports their right to claim but is opposed to the scope of the claim, what part of the claim does she reject? Is she opposed to the claim over Mindil Beach, Vesteys Beach, Casuarina Coastal Reserve and Marlow Lagoon? Does she oppose the claim over Lee Point? Does she oppose the compensation claims lodged over Cullen Bay and Bayview Haven? Does she oppose the claims that have stopped residential development in parts of Palmerston, that are holding up development in the Territory, that are preventing people from getting jobs and that are stopping investment? I ask her to tell Territorians what parts of the claim she does not oppose. It is nonsense for her to say that she and her colleagues do not agree with some parts of it. She should come clean and tell them what parts she does not agree with. Simply saying that `the scope of the claim' is of concern to the ALP does not mean anything. That tells
Page 1916
Territorians nothing. She should tell Territorians what parts of the claim she does and does not support. She should demonstrate the integrity of her position.
Page 1917
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think the government's position compares with Labor's position very starkly. We have demonstrated our opposition to this claim, the process that enables it, its scope and particular matters that pertain to it. Freehold land cannot be claimed under the native title legislation, but it has been. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cast aside the double standards that she has adopted. She took part in the debate yesterday. Her comments were recorded and she was very guarded in what she said. However, she tried to paint another picture publicly to give the impression that the Labor Party is opposed to the claim. It is not. Labor Party members are on the record as saying that they support the right of the Larrakia people to make the claim that they have made. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition says, together with her colleagues ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection.
Mr REED: Do not be so rude.
On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition says that the ALP does not support `the scope of the claim'. What does that mean? She has to come clean with Territorians. Either she supports the right of these people to lodge a claim or she does not. If she supports their right to claim but is opposed to the scope of the claim, what part of the claim does she reject? Is she opposed to the claim over Mindil Beach, Vesteys Beach, Casuarina Coastal Reserve and Marlow Lagoon? Does she oppose the claim over Lee Point? Does she oppose the compensation claims lodged over Cullen Bay and Bayview Haven? Does she oppose the claims that have stopped residential development in parts of Palmerston, that are holding up development in the Territory, that are preventing people from getting jobs and that are stopping investment? I ask her to tell Territorians what parts of the claim she does not oppose. It is nonsense for her to say that she and her colleagues do not agree with some parts of it. She should come clean and tell them what parts she does not agree with. Simply saying that `the scope of the claim' is of concern to the ALP does not mean anything. That tells
Page 1916
Territorians nothing. She should tell Territorians what parts of the claim she does and does not support. She should demonstrate the integrity of her position.
Page 1917
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016