Ms MARTIN - 1995-10-12
The member for Katherine tried to block the allocation of land for Aboriginal living areas in Katherine even before he became the minister. He claimed that the report of the working party was not available after he had issued a press release saying that he had received a copy. He tried then to divide the urban Aboriginal population in Katherine from the non-urban Aboriginal population, using divisive tactics similar to those adopted in the Arnhem by-election campaign. He claimed that the business community opposed the provision of living areas, but now finds that the business community supports the proposal. Will the minister admit now that he has been wrong at every turn on this issue and give his support to the need to provide additional Aboriginal living areas in Katherine?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, first I would like the member for Fannie Bay to provide evidence that I said that the business community was against town camps. She should show me in writing when and where I said that. When did I say that, and where? Tell me also when and where I blocked the allocation of land for this purpose. Which land did I block, and when did I do that?
Ms Martin: Four parcels of land were identified by the working party, and supported by the former Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government.
Mr REED: Which land did I block and when did I do it? You are making the allegations. I am simply asking you to substantiate the allegations that you have made.
Ms Martin: They can be thoroughly and substantially supported.
Mr REED: The other point that I want to make relates to the Wigley report. Is that the one you are talking about - the report on town camps?
Ms Martin: You have a copy.
Mr REED: The honourable member said that I issued a press release saying that I did not have a copy of the report when I did have a copy. I will tell the honourable member what
Page 858
the facts are because it is obvious that she is working on the basis of what she thinks. The facts are that she has not been able to substantiate ...
Mr Bailey: Everything is secret, and you make it up as you go along.
Mr REED: I do not see the member coming forward with the information to substantiate the 2 points that I have just questioned her on.
Mr Bailey: Every time we try to table material, you will not allow us.
Mr REED: I will pick up the interjection from the member for Wanguri, but I must say that I do sympathise with your position, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition alleged on the radio this morning that you show bias in the Assembly in favour of the government. The fact is that, when members opposite are so unruly and so rude, it is very difficult to put a point across or be able to answer questions. I sympathise, Mr Speaker, with your position ...
Mr Bailey: This is the parliament. It is not a private club that you guys run ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is making no attempt to answer this question. He was asked questions by the member for Fannie Bay. Let him deny the allegations if he wishes, but let him get on with the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the minister to come to the nub of the answer as quickly as possible, but I point out to members that I cannot oblige a minister to answer a question in any particular way. While the response may not satisfy the questioner, provided the answer is relevant to the question, he may or may not answer. He does not have to answer the question with facts.
Mrs Hickey: It is a waste of time, isn't it?
Mr Bailey: They rarely ever do!
Mr REED: I will leave it to people who are listening to this program to determine who has manners. In case the member has missed the nuances in my response, I sought clarification and proof that what she said is correct and I totally reject the suggestion that I have used the business community of Katherine as a pawn in this process and have said that they support my point of view. I have said that the people of Katherine want to participate in this process and that they want to have their say. If the member for Fannie Bay interprets that to be `the business community', so be it. I do not shrink from that at all. The people of Katherine, whom I represent, all have a right to contribute and to be heard on this very important issue.
When I was rudely interrupted, I was referring to the Wigley report. I explain for the benefit of people listening to the broadcast and others that various versions of that report were prepared. I believe some form of draft was first prepared in 1993. I received a copy in July this year. I cannot recall the exact date.
Page 859
Ms Martin: You were formally given one on 2 July.
Mr REED: Thank you. I might even agree with that. However, I will check it because generally your information has not proven to be particularly correct. It was certainly in July.
Mr Bailey: Yours wasn't either in the past. You cannot even quote what is in Hansard.
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing.
Mr Bailey: I thought ministers should answer questions on notice after 5 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: There was great difficulty in obtaining a copy of that report. Why was it so secretive? Why did it take so long to obtain a copy of the report? I understand it took the Katherine Town Council many months to obtain a copy of the report.
There was a request, through one of my officers, for the report to be made public to allow everybody to read it. Let us be fair and open about the report. I believe it was finalised last year. Only in July of this year, following pushing from myself, was the report released for everyone to comment on. Why the secrecy? Did that cause a delay in the processes in relation to which people will march in the streets today? It did. The people of Katherine want to know these things. They want to know how they will be affected.
In relation to the allegation that I blocked the allocation of land, no land has ever been allocated. Certainly, some sites were identified. However, the member for Fannie Bay has to realise that there is a difference between the identification of sites and those sites then being formally accepted ...
Ms Martin: The former minister supported it. Do you support it?
Mr Stirling: It is that simple.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: I ask you for proof that the former minister accepted or approved those sites.
Mr Bailey: He supported it.
Mr REED: Did he? Give me proof of that! You are good at making these allegations ...
Ms Martin: Ask him.
Mr Bailey: Ask him.
Page 860
Mr REED: We have seen no proof in relation to the 2 allegations you made relating to me. If you make allegations, please be able to substantiate them. Be honest with Territorians and say: `He said it. This is when he said it and where he said it'. If you can provide that information, I will be happy to explain any allegations that you make against me, but do not come into this House and make allegations that you cannot support. You are obviously operating on hearsay and that is not a very substantial basis on which to make allegations against someone. Let us get back to the point of the ...
Mr Bailey: At least we do not make up press releases, Mike.
Mr Stone: The member for Wanguri strikes again!
Mr Bailey: If he lied about what I said, he should withdraw it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: I would not withdraw it, Mr Speaker, while it galls him so. Why would I remove something that upsets this man on a regular basis and directs him away from the real course of life and his job? While it does that, Mr Speaker, I can sit here with a grin on my face. However, that is another issue entirely.
I ask the member for Fannie Bay to show me where the 4 sites were approved, accepted and supported. They were sites that were identified by a group of people. That group of people should not be under any misunderstanding in relation to what `identified' means. From that process, the sites had to be referred to the department for consideration and recommendation to the minister or Cabinet in relation to the allocation and use of Crown land. It is a long process and one that has not been pursued. Unfortunately, it has not been pursued because people are marching in the streets in Katherine. They are marching in the streets in Darwin today. I must say that it would be much more productive if they sat down and followed the consultative process which was established by the previous minister. It was a very formal process. The way to progress this matter of the housing needs of Aboriginal people was set out on a piece of paper. I think the process reached step 2 and then it bogged down. Since it bogged down, people have been marching in the streets in Katherine and in the streets of Darwin. They have not been progressing the cause they support. No doubt, there are many other issues which the honourable member will debate later today because there is to be an MPI discussion.
I reject the allegations by the member for Fannie Bay for a couple of reasons. Firstly, she is wrong and, secondly, she is unable to substantiate them. When she can substantiate such matters, I invite her to come forward with the information.
Page 861
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, first I would like the member for Fannie Bay to provide evidence that I said that the business community was against town camps. She should show me in writing when and where I said that. When did I say that, and where? Tell me also when and where I blocked the allocation of land for this purpose. Which land did I block, and when did I do that?
Ms Martin: Four parcels of land were identified by the working party, and supported by the former Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government.
Mr REED: Which land did I block and when did I do it? You are making the allegations. I am simply asking you to substantiate the allegations that you have made.
Ms Martin: They can be thoroughly and substantially supported.
Mr REED: The other point that I want to make relates to the Wigley report. Is that the one you are talking about - the report on town camps?
Ms Martin: You have a copy.
Mr REED: The honourable member said that I issued a press release saying that I did not have a copy of the report when I did have a copy. I will tell the honourable member what
Page 858
the facts are because it is obvious that she is working on the basis of what she thinks. The facts are that she has not been able to substantiate ...
Mr Bailey: Everything is secret, and you make it up as you go along.
Mr REED: I do not see the member coming forward with the information to substantiate the 2 points that I have just questioned her on.
Mr Bailey: Every time we try to table material, you will not allow us.
Mr REED: I will pick up the interjection from the member for Wanguri, but I must say that I do sympathise with your position, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition alleged on the radio this morning that you show bias in the Assembly in favour of the government. The fact is that, when members opposite are so unruly and so rude, it is very difficult to put a point across or be able to answer questions. I sympathise, Mr Speaker, with your position ...
Mr Bailey: This is the parliament. It is not a private club that you guys run ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is making no attempt to answer this question. He was asked questions by the member for Fannie Bay. Let him deny the allegations if he wishes, but let him get on with the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the minister to come to the nub of the answer as quickly as possible, but I point out to members that I cannot oblige a minister to answer a question in any particular way. While the response may not satisfy the questioner, provided the answer is relevant to the question, he may or may not answer. He does not have to answer the question with facts.
Mrs Hickey: It is a waste of time, isn't it?
Mr Bailey: They rarely ever do!
Mr REED: I will leave it to people who are listening to this program to determine who has manners. In case the member has missed the nuances in my response, I sought clarification and proof that what she said is correct and I totally reject the suggestion that I have used the business community of Katherine as a pawn in this process and have said that they support my point of view. I have said that the people of Katherine want to participate in this process and that they want to have their say. If the member for Fannie Bay interprets that to be `the business community', so be it. I do not shrink from that at all. The people of Katherine, whom I represent, all have a right to contribute and to be heard on this very important issue.
When I was rudely interrupted, I was referring to the Wigley report. I explain for the benefit of people listening to the broadcast and others that various versions of that report were prepared. I believe some form of draft was first prepared in 1993. I received a copy in July this year. I cannot recall the exact date.
Page 859
Ms Martin: You were formally given one on 2 July.
Mr REED: Thank you. I might even agree with that. However, I will check it because generally your information has not proven to be particularly correct. It was certainly in July.
Mr Bailey: Yours wasn't either in the past. You cannot even quote what is in Hansard.
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing.
Mr Bailey: I thought ministers should answer questions on notice after 5 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: There was great difficulty in obtaining a copy of that report. Why was it so secretive? Why did it take so long to obtain a copy of the report? I understand it took the Katherine Town Council many months to obtain a copy of the report.
There was a request, through one of my officers, for the report to be made public to allow everybody to read it. Let us be fair and open about the report. I believe it was finalised last year. Only in July of this year, following pushing from myself, was the report released for everyone to comment on. Why the secrecy? Did that cause a delay in the processes in relation to which people will march in the streets today? It did. The people of Katherine want to know these things. They want to know how they will be affected.
In relation to the allegation that I blocked the allocation of land, no land has ever been allocated. Certainly, some sites were identified. However, the member for Fannie Bay has to realise that there is a difference between the identification of sites and those sites then being formally accepted ...
Ms Martin: The former minister supported it. Do you support it?
Mr Stirling: It is that simple.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: I ask you for proof that the former minister accepted or approved those sites.
Mr Bailey: He supported it.
Mr REED: Did he? Give me proof of that! You are good at making these allegations ...
Ms Martin: Ask him.
Mr Bailey: Ask him.
Page 860
Mr REED: We have seen no proof in relation to the 2 allegations you made relating to me. If you make allegations, please be able to substantiate them. Be honest with Territorians and say: `He said it. This is when he said it and where he said it'. If you can provide that information, I will be happy to explain any allegations that you make against me, but do not come into this House and make allegations that you cannot support. You are obviously operating on hearsay and that is not a very substantial basis on which to make allegations against someone. Let us get back to the point of the ...
Mr Bailey: At least we do not make up press releases, Mike.
Mr Stone: The member for Wanguri strikes again!
Mr Bailey: If he lied about what I said, he should withdraw it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: I would not withdraw it, Mr Speaker, while it galls him so. Why would I remove something that upsets this man on a regular basis and directs him away from the real course of life and his job? While it does that, Mr Speaker, I can sit here with a grin on my face. However, that is another issue entirely.
I ask the member for Fannie Bay to show me where the 4 sites were approved, accepted and supported. They were sites that were identified by a group of people. That group of people should not be under any misunderstanding in relation to what `identified' means. From that process, the sites had to be referred to the department for consideration and recommendation to the minister or Cabinet in relation to the allocation and use of Crown land. It is a long process and one that has not been pursued. Unfortunately, it has not been pursued because people are marching in the streets in Katherine. They are marching in the streets in Darwin today. I must say that it would be much more productive if they sat down and followed the consultative process which was established by the previous minister. It was a very formal process. The way to progress this matter of the housing needs of Aboriginal people was set out on a piece of paper. I think the process reached step 2 and then it bogged down. Since it bogged down, people have been marching in the streets in Katherine and in the streets of Darwin. They have not been progressing the cause they support. No doubt, there are many other issues which the honourable member will debate later today because there is to be an MPI discussion.
I reject the allegations by the member for Fannie Bay for a couple of reasons. Firstly, she is wrong and, secondly, she is unable to substantiate them. When she can substantiate such matters, I invite her to come forward with the information.
Page 861
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016