Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2613 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

and that there is some continuing disagreement about underlying issues surrounding that matter. So I think it is very important that we work towards dealing with this in a consensual way, and if we do not have that it is important for us not to make decisions that would be counterproductive to the exercise at hand.

I commend the motion to the house, but I also commend Mr Smyth's amendment.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.15): I want to make a few brief responses, Mr Speaker. I accept the point that has been made about consultation. I don't think there was any suggestion in the motion that I proposed that there would not be full and open consultation with representatives of indigenous people.

As we all know, within the Indigenous community, as there is within every other community, there is a range of tensions and disagreements. The Attorney has alluded to these. I think all of us in this place who take an interest in indigenous issues within the territory and who relate with the indigenous community are aware of the fact that there are differences of opinion and disagreements and tension, just as there are in most of the organisations and communities that we deal with. So there is nothing new about that, and of course there needs to be appropriate consultation with not just the representatives of Ngunnawal people but also the representative organisations of all indigenous people within the community. I just assume it is implicit in everything we do that there will be appropriate consultation; that we deal with issues in accordance with the consultation protocol that the government has in place and professes to abide by, so I think it's a given that there will be appropriate consultation.

Having said that, I have no difficulty with this motion being explicit about something that I image was implicit in any event, but I think the version suggested by Ms Tucker is much to be preferred. The notion that there would be the agreement of all groups, as Ms Tucker said, really does raise a whole new issue in relation to an appropriate formal method of consultation, and to some extent it invites division. I heard what the Attorney said about the need to seek consensus where possible, and the need for us to be respectful of the range of opinions that exist, but, for this Assembly to go out and say we will do something if we can get the agreement of every single person, in effect invites division. It seems to me to say, "Yes, we will agree to the erection of signs if every single person involved agrees to the erection of the signs."

Mr Humphries: It says groups, Jon, not persons.

MR STANHOPE: Groups. Fine. The Attorney say groups, but we haven't defined the groups. In a way it is a proposal that I find a touch offensive. To the extent that I think it almost invites division, it is almost designed to ensure that divisions that may exist in the broad community are exacerbated. It allows one of those groups simply to stand on their dignity and refuse even to work towards a consensus position. So "consultation" is much to be preferred to "the agreement". I think it is important that we not support Mr Smyth's amendment in its current form. I think Ms Tucker's amendment to Mr Smyth's amendment is quite acceptable, and the Labor Party would have no difficulty accepting that change to the motion to make explicit what we always imagined would happen in any event.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .