Ms PURICK - 2010-10-20
Since the Territory election in August 2008, your government has issued 26 fishing-related media releases, including one on 3 September this year when the Fisheries minister marked the opening of the Darwin Boat Show. Given your government’s shameless record of self-promotion and self-indulgence, why did you conceal details of your plan to introduce boat registration across the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Oh dear, oh dear, Madam Speaker, I might be tempted to give the same answer. In regard to the support for recreational fishermen and fishing, we have done more as a government than any previous government in supporting recreational fishers.
My colleague, the Fisheries minister, was very excited when he came back a week or so ago from looking at the progress of the Palmerston boat ramp, which is going to be a magnificent investment. It is something the CLP never did when they were in government. Despite holding seats in Palmerston for many years, they never invested in a boat ramp in Palmerston.
As I said, very clearly - and maybe the honourable member was not listening to my last answer - there is a very clear policy difference between the government and the opposition in regard to a settlement for Blue Mud Bay, the High Court decision. Our policy and the position we took at the last election was we would seek to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that would guarantee enduring access, and would see recreational fishermen would not require a permit to go fishing. That is our policy; that is what we are still negotiating, in very good faith, with the Northern Land Council - as opposed to the opposition, which has said they would attempt to do one of two things.
One would be to try to legislate around the problem - and I do not know which rocket scientist on the other side of the House thought this House could legislate to overturn a finding of the High Court of Australia in regard to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is an act of the Commonwealth parliament - but be that as it may.
The second thing they have said is they would take the matter back to court. That would absolutely guarantee - their policy would absolutely guarantee - that recreational fishermen would, the next day, require fishing permits.
What we are doing is responsible: a good faith negotiated agreement. What the CLP would do would be to go back to the bad old days, try to legislate away people’s rights, and try to tie people up in the courts. Well, they could do that, but it would be to the detriment of recreational fishermen; under the CLP, it would be guaranteed they would require a permit.
ANSWER
Oh dear, oh dear, Madam Speaker, I might be tempted to give the same answer. In regard to the support for recreational fishermen and fishing, we have done more as a government than any previous government in supporting recreational fishers.
My colleague, the Fisheries minister, was very excited when he came back a week or so ago from looking at the progress of the Palmerston boat ramp, which is going to be a magnificent investment. It is something the CLP never did when they were in government. Despite holding seats in Palmerston for many years, they never invested in a boat ramp in Palmerston.
As I said, very clearly - and maybe the honourable member was not listening to my last answer - there is a very clear policy difference between the government and the opposition in regard to a settlement for Blue Mud Bay, the High Court decision. Our policy and the position we took at the last election was we would seek to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that would guarantee enduring access, and would see recreational fishermen would not require a permit to go fishing. That is our policy; that is what we are still negotiating, in very good faith, with the Northern Land Council - as opposed to the opposition, which has said they would attempt to do one of two things.
One would be to try to legislate around the problem - and I do not know which rocket scientist on the other side of the House thought this House could legislate to overturn a finding of the High Court of Australia in regard to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is an act of the Commonwealth parliament - but be that as it may.
The second thing they have said is they would take the matter back to court. That would absolutely guarantee - their policy would absolutely guarantee - that recreational fishermen would, the next day, require fishing permits.
What we are doing is responsible: a good faith negotiated agreement. What the CLP would do would be to go back to the bad old days, try to legislate away people’s rights, and try to tie people up in the courts. Well, they could do that, but it would be to the detriment of recreational fishermen; under the CLP, it would be guaranteed they would require a permit.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016