NT Labor denies division over McArthur River Q4

Member: Mr MILLS
To: MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
The Chief Minister has told Territorians that the primary reason the indigenous members of this House did not support the MRM bill was because of the timing of the funeral at Borroloola. What was your objection to the MRM bill? Was it simply the case the timing was wrong or was it the case that you objected to the bill because it would have the effect of taking away the established rights of traditional owners?

ANSWER

MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE: Madam Speaker, I am not going to thank the member for Blain for his question because he is just playing gutter politics with this whole thing. This matter is old news. The legislation passed through this House, is in operation and the mine is proceeding. As I have said, and if the member for Blain had bothered reading my interview with the Northern Territory News [see also article from the Australian], I said that I had difficulties with the timing, however, I supported the legislation. I do not intend to go over those issues again. You can try to twist and turn this as much as you want, that there were issues. I have explained that, and, yes, I was at a union function.

NT Labor denies division over McArthur River Q3

Member: Mr MILLS
To: MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
Other Speakers: 
Status: Questions
The Chief Minister has told Territorians that the primary reason the indigenous members of this House did not support the MRM bill was because of the timing of the funeral at Borroloola. What was your objection to the MRM bill? Was it simply the case the timing was wrong or was it the case that you objected to the bill because it would have the effect of taking away the established rights of traditional owners?

ANSWER

Madam Speaker, I am not going to thank the member for Blain for his question because he is just playing gutter politics with this whole thing. This matter is old news. The legislation passed through this House, is in operation and the mine is proceeding. As I have said, and if the member for Blain had bothered reading my interview with the Northern Territory News, I said that I had difficulties with the timing, however, I supported the legislation. I do not intend to go over those issues again. You can try to twist and turn this as much as you want, that there were issues. I have explained that, and, yes, I was at a union function.

NT Labor denies division over McArthur River Q2

Mr MILLS: Would you now take the opportunity to set the record straight and tell Territorians that the minister was not fully committed to the Cabinet decision, and not at an important budget meeting, but rather at drinks in this building?

ANSWER

CHIEF MINISTER: Madam Speaker, I usually thank the members opposite for their questions, but not this one, because it is actually full of misinformation. I am surprised that the member for Blain would simply do this and try and distort the facts of the matter.

I answered the question last time. The minister was fully committed to the Cabinet decision. There was an event on, it was budget week. I know that budget really has not impacted much on the opposition at this stage. It is a great budget and I congratulate the Treasurer. However, the fact was we were in the middle of a very busy budget week and commitments needed to be kept. That is what happened. To start making up fanciful things about what happened, does not do you any credit.

NT Labor denies division over McArthur River Q1

There were several questions in NT Parliament yesterday concerning Minister Scrymgour’s mysterious absence from Parliament the night of the vote for the McArthur River Amendment. See if you can decipher what really happened from the answers. 

Member: Mr MILLS
To: CHIEF MINISTER
On 5 May 2007, you told the NT News in relation to the minister for the Environment, absent from the McArthur River Mine vote, that ‘Marion was fully committed as part of the Cabinet decision to take the legislative amendment’. On 23 May 2007, minister Scrymgour admitted the only reason she did not cross the floor and vote against the bill was because she would have to resign as a minister. Most importantly, minister Scrymgour said on the ABC: ‘I had discussions with the Chief Minister and my other colleagues and I made a decision that I would not vote’. Which is correct? Is it your statement on 5 May or the member for Arafura’s statement on 23 May?

Ms MARTIN: That was certainly what I said at the time.

There is no doubt that everybody went through a lot of internal searching about it and realised that we did not have an option other than to bring that legislation in at that time, and to pass it in urgency. That does not take away from the real fact that faced members in here of the difficulties. For the Environment minister, it was no different. The Environment minister is a very responsible Cabinet minister, and she made that decision. However, it does not set aside the personal issues that go with that.

There is no doubt about it; it was a tough time. However, I have the fullest confidence in the member for Arafura and …

Ms MARTIN: … It was a difficult time. Cabinet ministers know very well that a Cabinet decision is a Cabinet decision, and that is the end of the matter.

McArthur River anger prompts parliamentary dissent

HOW long can Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin tolerate dissent within her ranks?
During the past few weeks, tensions within the Martin Labor Government have been on public display following concerns about several issues relating to Aborigines. And when one cabinet minister declares: “I’m spent”, surely something has to give.

Earlier this month, three Aboriginal Labor MPs crossed the floor over legislation relating to the McArthur River Mine.

The legislation was designed to overturn an earlier Supreme Court ruling against the approval process for the expansion of the mine, near Borroloola. But with a funeral the following day for a senior Aboriginal man in Borroloola, the three MPs crossed the floor in protest.

Another Aboriginal MP, Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour, missed the vote completely. Until this week, the Government maintained the obvious fiction that her absence was simply the result of other commitments. In fact, as Scrymgour told ABC radio on Wednesday, the only reason she didn’t vote against the legislation was that it would have left her out of a job.

“As a government minister, if I had crossed the floor against a government bill I would’ve had no option but to have resigned,” she said.

“I made a decision that I would not vote … I did stick to my principles and that is why I chose not to vote.”

Does the distinction matter? Crossing the floor and missing a vote are, of course, completely different concepts.

But for the average observer, Scrymgour’s position is clear: she didn’t cross the floor but she certainly didn’t support her Government’s legislation. Still, Scrymgour backed the Chief Minister and the Government this week. But she also admitted she had spent the past few weeks soul-searching, adding that she was spent.

“You get to a point in your working career, in your life, you work hard to get where you are, there are certain threshold issues that you get to that cause you to confront who you are and what you are,” she said.

“I don’t walk out of Parliament House, or anywhere else, and go home and wash my skin and the Aboriginality disappears. That stays with me 24/7.”

Also weighing on Scrymgour was the issue of 99-year leases, the scheme promoted by the Howard Government to boost home ownership and economic development in remote communities. The first community to agree to the long-term leases is Nguiu, on the Tiwi Islands.

But Scrymgour, a Tiwi Islander, has deep concerns. Last week, during a visit to Nguiu by federal Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough, she said it “has divided our people like no other issue”. Brough pointed out that 99-year leases were first raised by the Chief Minister, but Scrymgour has not backed down.

This week, the traditional owners of Nguiu circulated a document detailing why the deal was a good idea.

Scrymgour wrote a detailed rebuttal in response, saying many of the points raised were misleading and “plain wrong”.

All these issues must be of concern to Martin, who has already come under fire from within her ranks over her handling of indigenous affairs.

In the next few weeks, a report she commissioned into violence and abuse in Aboriginal communities will finally be made public after several delays. Her response may set the tone for the rest of the year.

The Australian A house divided by land issues, Ashleigh Wilson, May 26, 2007