Mr STIRLING - 2000-06-20
Chief Minister, last Thursday in this House we saw an unprecedented conflict of interest when your backbencher, the member for Nightcliff, attempted to amend legislation so that his own company could continue to avoid pay-roll tax and rip off Territory taxpayers. What action do you intend to take against this member who has sought to avoid tax, undermine your government legislative program and the Territory’s revenue base, all for his personal greed?
ANSWER
I am pleased you asked that question actually because it allows me to put on the record that I have absolute faith in the integrity of the member for Nightcliff. People will reflect on member for Nightcliff when he eventually retires from parliament at the next election and many will reflect in different ways, but certainly part of my reflection will be a person of the utmost integrity, a person who had his own views on a number of issues, and was prepared to take those views strongly, despite the criticism often at times from some of his own colleagues.
Last Thursday in the parliament, I believe we saw no different from that. The member for Nightcliff knew the amendments to the legislation that he proposed had no chance of success, but he wanted to put on the record that in his opinion, this particular legislation did not benefit small business and there were other options available. We had discussed those amendments with the member for Nightcliff on a number of occasions. With Treasury advice, we do not share his point of view. We believe the legislation that was introduced is the best approach to that particular issue, and strongly supported by the opposition in the debate in the Chamber. So in that regard, I believe the legislation is good legislation.
What we also had is the typical cowardice of the Leader of the Opposition in coming out and attacking the member for Nightcliff, and somehow casting aspersions on his integrity in the media the next day. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have at least stuck by their opinion that they had in this Chamber. What actually happened was the Leader of the Opposition made comments that were quite constructive, in fact, in this Chamber. I will repeat those comments because I have the Hansard transcript. When Mr Hatton proposed his amendments and the Leader of the Opposition was commenting on those amendments, I will quote inter alia, what she said:
I do note that there has been Amendment Schedule No 76 that has been circulated by Mr Hatton. It is an attempt to change that amendment, as I understand it. It will be interesting to hear when the member speaks to this amendment, to actually have the tax applied, not to the labour firm but to the client, is that as I understand it. Again, as I understand it, what it means is that the labour hire firm does not then pay the pay-roll tax but if the client is ineligible to pay pay-roll tax, if their annual salaries are less than $600 000, then they won’t pay the pay-roll tax either. So it looks as though in this, the loss is the Treasury’s. I am sure many clients of labour hire firms do not come to the pay-roll tax net and therefore the Territory’s revenue base misses out. But it seems to undermine the whole intent of this section of the pay-roll tax amendment which has certainly had the support of this side of the House. I would be interested to hear the mover of that amendment talk to it.
That is constructive. Left to her own devices, without the bovver boys out the back saying ‘you fool’, slap around the ears, get out there and change what you just said, left to her own devices she recognised the spirit and integrity of the amendment and the way it was proposed by the member for Nightcliff and her response in the Hansard clearly reflects that. It is only later...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy that when I am calling for order, he will stay silent and that is the last warning.
Mr BURKE: It is only later that we see the weakness of this particular leader because when the debate ends the bovver boy gets up – Mr Stirling came in here, the member for Nhulunbuy came in here, and attacked the integrity of the member for Nightcliff, which is quite at odds to the Leader of the Opposition and her comments, but guess who won? The one who won was the bovver boy. He gets her out the back and says: ‘You fool of a woman, here is a political opportunity to swipe the member for Nightcliff. Let’s see what we can get out of it’. She says: ‘Uh, uh, uh, righto give me 12 hours to think about it, and then I will get on the radio and run your point of view Syd,’ and that is what happened.
A member: Syd Viscin.
Mr BURKE: That is what happened. Syd Viscin, the bovver boy. Nice to know who is running the show, Syd. It is good to know who is running the show. Do the numbers again, there might be another chance.
Just to finish off, with regards to the member for Nightcliff I have absolute confidence in his integrity as a member of parliament, as do many, many Territorians have absolute confidence in his ability to represent them, and have supported him for more than 16 years in this parliament.
I noted also that when we talk about conflicts of interest, the Leader of the Opposition proposed yesterday under a policy statement of good government that as Chief Minister she would introduce a code of conduct for politicians. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that she does not need to be the Chief Minister to introduce a code of conduct. She can introduce a code of conduct now, as the Leader of the Opposition for the members of her own parliamentary wing. If she had a code of conduct, and she introduced a code of conduct such as she proposes, two of the members on that side of the House would not presently be in this Chamber.
ANSWER
I am pleased you asked that question actually because it allows me to put on the record that I have absolute faith in the integrity of the member for Nightcliff. People will reflect on member for Nightcliff when he eventually retires from parliament at the next election and many will reflect in different ways, but certainly part of my reflection will be a person of the utmost integrity, a person who had his own views on a number of issues, and was prepared to take those views strongly, despite the criticism often at times from some of his own colleagues.
Last Thursday in the parliament, I believe we saw no different from that. The member for Nightcliff knew the amendments to the legislation that he proposed had no chance of success, but he wanted to put on the record that in his opinion, this particular legislation did not benefit small business and there were other options available. We had discussed those amendments with the member for Nightcliff on a number of occasions. With Treasury advice, we do not share his point of view. We believe the legislation that was introduced is the best approach to that particular issue, and strongly supported by the opposition in the debate in the Chamber. So in that regard, I believe the legislation is good legislation.
What we also had is the typical cowardice of the Leader of the Opposition in coming out and attacking the member for Nightcliff, and somehow casting aspersions on his integrity in the media the next day. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have at least stuck by their opinion that they had in this Chamber. What actually happened was the Leader of the Opposition made comments that were quite constructive, in fact, in this Chamber. I will repeat those comments because I have the Hansard transcript. When Mr Hatton proposed his amendments and the Leader of the Opposition was commenting on those amendments, I will quote inter alia, what she said:
I do note that there has been Amendment Schedule No 76 that has been circulated by Mr Hatton. It is an attempt to change that amendment, as I understand it. It will be interesting to hear when the member speaks to this amendment, to actually have the tax applied, not to the labour firm but to the client, is that as I understand it. Again, as I understand it, what it means is that the labour hire firm does not then pay the pay-roll tax but if the client is ineligible to pay pay-roll tax, if their annual salaries are less than $600 000, then they won’t pay the pay-roll tax either. So it looks as though in this, the loss is the Treasury’s. I am sure many clients of labour hire firms do not come to the pay-roll tax net and therefore the Territory’s revenue base misses out. But it seems to undermine the whole intent of this section of the pay-roll tax amendment which has certainly had the support of this side of the House. I would be interested to hear the mover of that amendment talk to it.
That is constructive. Left to her own devices, without the bovver boys out the back saying ‘you fool’, slap around the ears, get out there and change what you just said, left to her own devices she recognised the spirit and integrity of the amendment and the way it was proposed by the member for Nightcliff and her response in the Hansard clearly reflects that. It is only later...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy that when I am calling for order, he will stay silent and that is the last warning.
Mr BURKE: It is only later that we see the weakness of this particular leader because when the debate ends the bovver boy gets up – Mr Stirling came in here, the member for Nhulunbuy came in here, and attacked the integrity of the member for Nightcliff, which is quite at odds to the Leader of the Opposition and her comments, but guess who won? The one who won was the bovver boy. He gets her out the back and says: ‘You fool of a woman, here is a political opportunity to swipe the member for Nightcliff. Let’s see what we can get out of it’. She says: ‘Uh, uh, uh, righto give me 12 hours to think about it, and then I will get on the radio and run your point of view Syd,’ and that is what happened.
A member: Syd Viscin.
Mr BURKE: That is what happened. Syd Viscin, the bovver boy. Nice to know who is running the show, Syd. It is good to know who is running the show. Do the numbers again, there might be another chance.
Just to finish off, with regards to the member for Nightcliff I have absolute confidence in his integrity as a member of parliament, as do many, many Territorians have absolute confidence in his ability to represent them, and have supported him for more than 16 years in this parliament.
I noted also that when we talk about conflicts of interest, the Leader of the Opposition proposed yesterday under a policy statement of good government that as Chief Minister she would introduce a code of conduct for politicians. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that she does not need to be the Chief Minister to introduce a code of conduct. She can introduce a code of conduct now, as the Leader of the Opposition for the members of her own parliamentary wing. If she had a code of conduct, and she introduced a code of conduct such as she proposes, two of the members on that side of the House would not presently be in this Chamber.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016