Mrs HICKEY - 1997-04-30
He has embraced the Howard 10-point plan on native title without having any idea how much it will cost taxpayers in compensation payments or legal bills. Will he admit that he has written a blank cheque, leaving Territory taxpayers to carry the burden? Does the budget that is to be handed down today take into account the contingent liabilities to which the Chief Minister has exposed Territory taxpayers? If not, how can his budget be trusted?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, had the Leader of the Opposition listened to what I said yesterday, she would be aware that I made it very clear that no state or territory had signed off on the legislative package proposed by the Prime Minister. Rather ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: You asked the question. Will you afford me the courtesy of being quiet while I give the answer?
I made it very clear in the ministerial statement that no state or territory had signed off on the agreement and that we would go back to our respective jurisdictions and encourage discussion and debate on these issues.
At first blush, the legislative package proposed by the Prime Minister delivers the certainty that we have all been searching for. Members opposite should not try to tell me for one moment that the current regime, under the current act, delivers anything to Aboriginal Australians. It does not. There has been one deal only, negotiated in New South Wales, and it was a farcical situation. The land, having been handed over, was immediately sold back to the state government after a 24-hour period. That is not economic empowerment. That is not allowing Aboriginal people to use their land in a particular way to ensure that they build an economic base. Quite clearly, the Native Title Act has not been working for anybody. It has not been working for Aboriginal Australians. It certainly has not worked for Aboriginal Territorians, and it has left uncertainty in the minds of pastoralists.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: There is still a great way to go in terms of the legislative package. If the member for Stuart will be quiet, he will have an opportunity to hear the answer that I am providing for all Territorians who are listening to this broadcast. The facts are that, notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition wants to make the fallacious claim that we have written a blank cheque when we have not, because we have not even signed off on this agreement ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Page 2085
Mr STONE: She is misleading Territorians. The proposed new threshold tests and registration tests will be much tougher. There is no doubt about that. As a consequence, the compensation payable will be a great deal less. Do not come into this Chamber and pretend that you know exactly how much compensation will or will not be paid, either under the current regime or under an amended regime. Nobody in Australia knows the likely outcome in terms of compensation.
The Labor Party stands condemned. It has misled claimants in both Darwin and Alice Springs. The Leader of the Opposition has never told them the truth. She did not give them the facts, but she encouraged them to go on their merry way ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister knows that he cannot imply that the Leader of the Opposition did not tell the truth other than by way of a substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: The Chief Minister should withdraw the implication that the Leader of the Opposition has not told the truth.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that.
The Leader of the Opposition misled Aboriginal Territorians in the way that she painted a picture with a phoney policy that delivers nothing. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Arnhem both got to their feet and referred to a policy that is simply phoney. It has no legislative basis. It could never be carried into law. They may make these promises to Aboriginal people, but they should tell them the truth. They should tell them they will never be able to deliver on that policy because it is not possible under the Native Title Act. The Leader of the Opposition should be up-front with those people and tell them she could never deliver. That is why members opposite put in their policy the words `in the term of government', because they knew they could never do it. They knew they could never deliver. They were probably counting, in the unhappy event that they ever gained office in the Northern Territory, on those people forgetting or forgiving over 4 or 5 years. I do
not think these people are that stupid. They would have seen through members opposite and their phoney policy and they would have known that they could never deliver, to the claimants in either Alice Springs or Darwin, what they purported to be prepared to do.
Page 2086
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, had the Leader of the Opposition listened to what I said yesterday, she would be aware that I made it very clear that no state or territory had signed off on the legislative package proposed by the Prime Minister. Rather ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: You asked the question. Will you afford me the courtesy of being quiet while I give the answer?
I made it very clear in the ministerial statement that no state or territory had signed off on the agreement and that we would go back to our respective jurisdictions and encourage discussion and debate on these issues.
At first blush, the legislative package proposed by the Prime Minister delivers the certainty that we have all been searching for. Members opposite should not try to tell me for one moment that the current regime, under the current act, delivers anything to Aboriginal Australians. It does not. There has been one deal only, negotiated in New South Wales, and it was a farcical situation. The land, having been handed over, was immediately sold back to the state government after a 24-hour period. That is not economic empowerment. That is not allowing Aboriginal people to use their land in a particular way to ensure that they build an economic base. Quite clearly, the Native Title Act has not been working for anybody. It has not been working for Aboriginal Australians. It certainly has not worked for Aboriginal Territorians, and it has left uncertainty in the minds of pastoralists.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: There is still a great way to go in terms of the legislative package. If the member for Stuart will be quiet, he will have an opportunity to hear the answer that I am providing for all Territorians who are listening to this broadcast. The facts are that, notwithstanding that the Leader of the Opposition wants to make the fallacious claim that we have written a blank cheque when we have not, because we have not even signed off on this agreement ...
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Page 2085
Mr STONE: She is misleading Territorians. The proposed new threshold tests and registration tests will be much tougher. There is no doubt about that. As a consequence, the compensation payable will be a great deal less. Do not come into this Chamber and pretend that you know exactly how much compensation will or will not be paid, either under the current regime or under an amended regime. Nobody in Australia knows the likely outcome in terms of compensation.
The Labor Party stands condemned. It has misled claimants in both Darwin and Alice Springs. The Leader of the Opposition has never told them the truth. She did not give them the facts, but she encouraged them to go on their merry way ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister knows that he cannot imply that the Leader of the Opposition did not tell the truth other than by way of a substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: The Chief Minister should withdraw the implication that the Leader of the Opposition has not told the truth.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that.
The Leader of the Opposition misled Aboriginal Territorians in the way that she painted a picture with a phoney policy that delivers nothing. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Arnhem both got to their feet and referred to a policy that is simply phoney. It has no legislative basis. It could never be carried into law. They may make these promises to Aboriginal people, but they should tell them the truth. They should tell them they will never be able to deliver on that policy because it is not possible under the Native Title Act. The Leader of the Opposition should be up-front with those people and tell them she could never deliver. That is why members opposite put in their policy the words `in the term of government', because they knew they could never do it. They knew they could never deliver. They were probably counting, in the unhappy event that they ever gained office in the Northern Territory, on those people forgetting or forgiving over 4 or 5 years. I do
not think these people are that stupid. They would have seen through members opposite and their phoney policy and they would have known that they could never deliver, to the claimants in either Alice Springs or Darwin, what they purported to be prepared to do.
Page 2086
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016