Ms MARTIN - 2000-08-08
In the government’s May budget the Treasurer announced the removal of the 1.1 per litre fuel subsidy. The announcement reflected the desperate state the budget is in - the removal of a subsidy from which all motorists benefit, simply to plug a growing budget blow-out. In July, under pressure from Labor, from Canberra and from Territorians, the government backflipped, announcing that the removal of the fuel subsidy had been deferred until October. A deferral is not good enough. Will the Chief Minister now guarantee Territorians that the fuel subsidy will stay for good?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, as I rise to my feet I welcome the member for Arafura back into this Chamber after his recent illness. I do hope, and I am sure I speak for all members on this side of the House, that he has fully recovered and will be able to contribute fully to debates in the future.
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition comes back from the federal Labor conference and asks that question when she has the opportunity to get to her feet. I would have thought this was a perfect opportunity to provide a personal explanation to this House of her record and the record of the Labor government, particularly with regard to some of the motions that were put forward at the recent Labor conference.
She might wish to reflect and apologise as to why ‘roll-back’ under a Labor Party seems to have disappeared from the vocabulary of the Labor Party. She might wish to inform Territorians why the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory, having conducted a scare campaign on Australians and Territorians over the last two years on the issue of the GST, now is embarrassed by the way the GST has been introduced. It has been advised by some of the top strategists in the Labor Party to get rid of this flawed argument and come up with something different. Hence GST has disappeared. I would have thought an apology, or an explanation at the very least, would have been something the Leader of the Opposition could offer.
She might wish to inform this House why the Labor Party in the Northern Territory supports a federal plan to support mandatory sentencing in Western Australia.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This is Question Time. The Chief Minister has been asked a specific question. It is not his right to use up Question Time by rambling far and wide on issues unrelated to …
Mr SPEAKER: Regardless, there is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: She might wish to reflect on why the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory, supports mandatory sentencing in Western Australia and not in the Northern Territory. She might wish to explain how that high point of principle, that mandatory sentencing falls heavily on Aboriginal people, has been somehow overlooked for the political expediency of one Kim Beazley. The federal Labor Party, embracing a policy in Western Australia, which jails Aboriginal people at nine times the rate that they are jailed in the Northern Territory, somehow believes that it can condemn the Northern Territory for its policy on mandatory sentencing.
She might wish to explain to Territorians the Labor position on statehood which has now come out of the federal Labor conference. That makes some great reading, I can tell you, if you look at the extract of the debate. We are yet to find out -and I hope I can get it to the voters - just how you did vote on statehood. We have your little contribution to the debate. It makes great reading that the Labor Party …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is treating this House, this Assembly, with contempt by refusing to address the question. Either he answers or says he will not answer the question and sits down. He cannot use Question Time going on forever with this nonsense.
Mr SPEAKER: The answer to the question is, in fact, ranging fairly broadly. I ask the Chief Minister to keep as near as possible – I am not in a position to tell the Chief Minister how to word his answer but it should be relevant to the question, yes.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, we set the priority with regard to how consolidated revenue is applied in the Northern Territory. The 1.1 subsidy will be applied according to Northern Territory government priorities, not at the whim of the federal Treasurer. What we have agreed to do, during the period of implementation of the GST, is withhold that decision until the Treasurer’s conference occurs later in the year, when that decision will be backed by John Howard. Now let us get back to something important.
Ms Martin: So no guarantee. Sit down.
Mr BURKE: You should have listened. ‘Sit down’, she says. The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Sit down’. She doesn’t want me to answer any questions when it comes to her contribution to the statehood debate. The Labor Party federally, supported by the Northern Territory only supports statehood if there is a Labor government in power in the Northern Territory. One of the debaters, Mr Shuter from Queensland, starts the debate by saying, ‘Thank you, Comrade Chair,’ and then goes on to say inter alia:
but I would hope if the Territory does move towards statehood that it does so incredibly cautiously and that the Labor Party is not out there at some stage advocating a vote for statehood if they are not in a position where we can certainly take control of the government of that new state.
‘Thank you, Comrade Chair’, completes his contribution to the debate.
I could go on and ask the Leader of the Opposition why she signed up to a health care policy promoted at the federal Labor conference …
Ms Martin: It is a great policy.
Mr BURKE: ‘A great policy’, she says. A great policy that she signed up for at the federal Labor conference. When I was minister for health in this government it took us 18 months or more to negotiate the last Medicare agreement, negotiating against the thuggish tactics of the large states, Victoria and New South Wales. Whether they are Labor states or Coalition states at the time is irrelevant when it comes to fighting for the Territory’s position. They had a thuggish approach.
This inept leader in five minutes signs up the Northern Territory for something she knows nothing about. She simplistically jumped in behind a bandwagon of the Bracks and Carr Labor governments and knows not what she is getting the Northern Territory into.
While she is doing all this, the member for Wanguri is eating her lunch, because he is running a line about sludge in Darwin. Now the shadow member for Lands, Planning …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! He has been on his feet for some 12 minutes. He has answered the question. He is just filibustering and using the whole of Question Time and he should be called to order.
Mr SPEAKER: In fact, the Chief Minister has been on his feet for something like 6 minutes. I would ask, though, that answers where possible are kept reasonably succinct. They are ranging too long. I would appreciate answers being reasonably succinct. Would the Chief Minister wind up the answer as quickly as possible?
Mr PALMER (Leader of Government Business): Mr Speaker, for the purposes of judging the duration of Question Time, I will accept the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s assertion that the Chief Minister has been on his feet for 12 minutes.
Mr BURKE: While the Leader of the Opposition is conducting a dialogue with Comrade Shuter from Queensland, the member for Wanguri has stolen her lunch. He is running the lands, planning and environment issue on sludge – and, might I add, making good effort. The member for Wanguri got more press. Well done! There is a boy with a future. The member for Wanguri pinched her shadow portfolio issues. He said: ‘This is a good one for me - bugger the leader!’ He ran it very successfully and has got more press lately than the Leader of the Opposition in all of her eight or nine days in Tasmania.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, as I rise to my feet I welcome the member for Arafura back into this Chamber after his recent illness. I do hope, and I am sure I speak for all members on this side of the House, that he has fully recovered and will be able to contribute fully to debates in the future.
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition comes back from the federal Labor conference and asks that question when she has the opportunity to get to her feet. I would have thought this was a perfect opportunity to provide a personal explanation to this House of her record and the record of the Labor government, particularly with regard to some of the motions that were put forward at the recent Labor conference.
She might wish to reflect and apologise as to why ‘roll-back’ under a Labor Party seems to have disappeared from the vocabulary of the Labor Party. She might wish to inform Territorians why the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory, having conducted a scare campaign on Australians and Territorians over the last two years on the issue of the GST, now is embarrassed by the way the GST has been introduced. It has been advised by some of the top strategists in the Labor Party to get rid of this flawed argument and come up with something different. Hence GST has disappeared. I would have thought an apology, or an explanation at the very least, would have been something the Leader of the Opposition could offer.
She might wish to inform this House why the Labor Party in the Northern Territory supports a federal plan to support mandatory sentencing in Western Australia.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! This is Question Time. The Chief Minister has been asked a specific question. It is not his right to use up Question Time by rambling far and wide on issues unrelated to …
Mr SPEAKER: Regardless, there is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: She might wish to reflect on why the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory, supports mandatory sentencing in Western Australia and not in the Northern Territory. She might wish to explain how that high point of principle, that mandatory sentencing falls heavily on Aboriginal people, has been somehow overlooked for the political expediency of one Kim Beazley. The federal Labor Party, embracing a policy in Western Australia, which jails Aboriginal people at nine times the rate that they are jailed in the Northern Territory, somehow believes that it can condemn the Northern Territory for its policy on mandatory sentencing.
She might wish to explain to Territorians the Labor position on statehood which has now come out of the federal Labor conference. That makes some great reading, I can tell you, if you look at the extract of the debate. We are yet to find out -and I hope I can get it to the voters - just how you did vote on statehood. We have your little contribution to the debate. It makes great reading that the Labor Party …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is treating this House, this Assembly, with contempt by refusing to address the question. Either he answers or says he will not answer the question and sits down. He cannot use Question Time going on forever with this nonsense.
Mr SPEAKER: The answer to the question is, in fact, ranging fairly broadly. I ask the Chief Minister to keep as near as possible – I am not in a position to tell the Chief Minister how to word his answer but it should be relevant to the question, yes.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, we set the priority with regard to how consolidated revenue is applied in the Northern Territory. The 1.1 subsidy will be applied according to Northern Territory government priorities, not at the whim of the federal Treasurer. What we have agreed to do, during the period of implementation of the GST, is withhold that decision until the Treasurer’s conference occurs later in the year, when that decision will be backed by John Howard. Now let us get back to something important.
Ms Martin: So no guarantee. Sit down.
Mr BURKE: You should have listened. ‘Sit down’, she says. The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Sit down’. She doesn’t want me to answer any questions when it comes to her contribution to the statehood debate. The Labor Party federally, supported by the Northern Territory only supports statehood if there is a Labor government in power in the Northern Territory. One of the debaters, Mr Shuter from Queensland, starts the debate by saying, ‘Thank you, Comrade Chair,’ and then goes on to say inter alia:
but I would hope if the Territory does move towards statehood that it does so incredibly cautiously and that the Labor Party is not out there at some stage advocating a vote for statehood if they are not in a position where we can certainly take control of the government of that new state.
‘Thank you, Comrade Chair’, completes his contribution to the debate.
I could go on and ask the Leader of the Opposition why she signed up to a health care policy promoted at the federal Labor conference …
Ms Martin: It is a great policy.
Mr BURKE: ‘A great policy’, she says. A great policy that she signed up for at the federal Labor conference. When I was minister for health in this government it took us 18 months or more to negotiate the last Medicare agreement, negotiating against the thuggish tactics of the large states, Victoria and New South Wales. Whether they are Labor states or Coalition states at the time is irrelevant when it comes to fighting for the Territory’s position. They had a thuggish approach.
This inept leader in five minutes signs up the Northern Territory for something she knows nothing about. She simplistically jumped in behind a bandwagon of the Bracks and Carr Labor governments and knows not what she is getting the Northern Territory into.
While she is doing all this, the member for Wanguri is eating her lunch, because he is running a line about sludge in Darwin. Now the shadow member for Lands, Planning …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! He has been on his feet for some 12 minutes. He has answered the question. He is just filibustering and using the whole of Question Time and he should be called to order.
Mr SPEAKER: In fact, the Chief Minister has been on his feet for something like 6 minutes. I would ask, though, that answers where possible are kept reasonably succinct. They are ranging too long. I would appreciate answers being reasonably succinct. Would the Chief Minister wind up the answer as quickly as possible?
Mr PALMER (Leader of Government Business): Mr Speaker, for the purposes of judging the duration of Question Time, I will accept the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s assertion that the Chief Minister has been on his feet for 12 minutes.
Mr BURKE: While the Leader of the Opposition is conducting a dialogue with Comrade Shuter from Queensland, the member for Wanguri has stolen her lunch. He is running the lands, planning and environment issue on sludge – and, might I add, making good effort. The member for Wanguri got more press. Well done! There is a boy with a future. The member for Wanguri pinched her shadow portfolio issues. He said: ‘This is a good one for me - bugger the leader!’ He ran it very successfully and has got more press lately than the Leader of the Opposition in all of her eight or nine days in Tasmania.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016