Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (11 November 1986)

Details:

Title

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (11 November 1986)

Collection

Debates for 4th Assembly 1983 - 1987; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 4th Assembly 1983 - 1987

Date

1986-11-11

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/220605

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/698931

Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 11 November 1986 Mr D.W. Collins: I say it again. Mr EDE: Thank you. I will take that interjection on board because that is the third time. For the information of the Chairman of the Sessional Committee' on the Environment, Nabarlek is 40 km from its closest border to Kakadu National Park. He does not even know where the park is. Mr Coulter: And neither do you. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Stuart will be heard in silence. Mr EDE: . The member for Sadadeen used that as his justification for his supreme knowledge. He has proven beyond any doubt the need for all members to support the amendment proposed by the member for Arafura whi ch states that a 11 words after 'that' be omitted and there be inserted in their stead that all consideration by this Assembly of matters relating to the listing of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park on the World Heritage List be postponed until the Minister for Conservation tables in the Assembly: the UNESCO documents detailing the stringent criteria; a detailed brief relating to the presence or otherwise of these criteria in stage 2 of the park; and the submission, together with attached documents, including videos, which it is intended to present to UNESCO in opposition to the listing of stage 2 of the park on the Worl d Heritage Li st. Mr Speaker, obviously that is what is required at this stage. The honourable chairman there stated that he had had experience which was not even obtained in the park. If we want more evidence, let us refer to the speech of the Minister for Mines and Energy because he also said that we were experts because we were members of this committee. In fact,I think he was a member for a shorter time than I was, and that is something of a record. He stated that we were experts because of the trips we had made and a visit to the Ranger mine, and that that had shown us what Kakadu was all about. Once again, the very person who, we are told, is to go to Paris to explain to UNESCO why this area cannot have world listing, does not know. As yet he has not realised that the Ranger mine and the area surrounding it have been excised from the park. We were not in the park. Mr Speaker, once again, he has shown that he does not know where the park boundaries are. To date, 2 of the 3 government speakers have shown by their own words that they do not know where the boundaries of the park are, yet they are telling us that we have to make a decision on this matter. MrCoulter: He does not even know where Ranger 68 is. Mr EDE: Mr Speaker, I will take that on board too, because that was a totally incorrect interpretation by the NT News. Mr Coulter: Itis a telex from him. Did he get his telex wrong, too? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr EDE: Mr Speaker, his earlier statement, that the Prime Minister was in the wrong area, was totally incorrect. He was within the boundaries of Ranger 68. That demonstrates why the amendment must be accepted. The honourable minister who, we are told, is to go to Paris to put the case of the Northern 769


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.