Dr LIM - 2000-02-24
I would like to pursue further the opposition leader’s lack of understanding of accounting matters. Yesterday in Question Time, the opposition leader used the Commonwealth Parliament’s Hansard to claim that specific purpose payments to the Territory will be cut under the GST. Has the Treasurer checked the Federal Hansard to which the opposition leader referred, and does he have any further information on the Labor Party’s claims.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition upholds the values of equity and natural justice and procedural fairness but unfortunately does not apply them to herself. On many occasions we have had, as ministers being asked questions in this House, the need to respond to the Leader of the Opposition when she quotes from documents. However, as she cannot be trusted to quote appropriately and fully and put the quote in full context, we will not answer the question because we check the document first to see that she is telling the truth. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday gave us yet another example of her master of deceptiveness.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a question yesterday and she quoted some remarks in the Federal Parliament out of the Federal Parliamentary Hansard of one Mr Slipper, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Finance and Administration. Now, quite appropriately, she could ask the question in relation to what Mr Slipper said if she read the whole of the transcript from Hansard, but of course she did not because it did not suit her.
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr REED: ‘No’ says the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and that is a good point. So she either read it and understood it or did not read it and understand it. So did you not understand it or did you misrepresent it? You can’t say it was either or both. If you’re going to get into the equity business, if you’re going to be spouting the honesty and the natural justice, what about practising it yourself? The fact is that Clare Martin can’t have it both ways. She’s either got to be bright enough to read Hansard, and she’s got to know that she’s knowingly deceiving Territorians, or she doesn’t understand it. You’ve got to tell us which way it is.
I’ll read into Hansard the circumstances of the point that I’m making as regards her misrepresentation, because had she read the full comment, or if she’d even read the question her boss had asked after Mr Slipper, she would have understood that she was misleading Territorians in asking the question:
My intention, which is entirely clear from the context of my remarks, was to refer to general purpose payments, [not SPPs], as I was making the obvious point that the states will be receiving all the revenue from the GST in return for certain other general payments the states currently receive. There is no intention to cut aggregate specific purpose payments to the states, and this is perfectly clear from clause 5(v) of the intergovernmental agreement signed by all Labor state premiers as the opposition well knows.
You, the opposition leader, misled this House. She misled Territorians. She has now been proven once again as a master of deception but it is she who has to answer to Territorians ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the minister wants to allege that the Leader of the Opposition has misled the House, it’s a very serious charge, and one that if he fully believes, should go to the Privileges Committee. He ought to withdraw it, or send it to the Privileges Committee, or move a substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: The standing orders are fairly clear on this. You can’t express either directly or by innuendo any misconduct or any attempted misconduct, or misleading of another member of this House. I would have to rule there’s a point or order. But again, I would say that both sides of the House regularly get away with that sort of comment. It seems to me that this morning we’re all being a little pedantic, but I’m prepared to ask that the comment be withdrawn.
Mr REED: I am happy to withdraw the remark, and acknowledge the tenderness of members opposite. It’s interesting to note, of course, that when they call members on this side of the House racists or condoning apartheid policies and being an apartheid government, being red necks, they’re not so sensitive.
So, SPPs, special purpose payments to the states and territories, as Mr Slipper himself said in his personal explanation in parliament ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr REED: I must respond to the outburst by the member for Nhulunbuy,. The last time he had an outburst like this, publicly, was about, I think, mandatory sentencing over the Christmas period, and it so offended Territorians that one of them put a sign on the Stuart Highway: ‘Having a party? Need a clown? Hire Syd Stirling’. That’s what Territorians think of you. I’d gladly give you a copy. I’d table a copy, because those Territorians who didn’t see it or were away on holidays will be very amused.
From the point of view of the Hansard, there was no break in the discussion or the contribution. I table the Hansard. It was in the same debate, it was on the same page as Mr Slipper’s report in Hansard, but you were deceitful enough to let it go.
The only threat to special purpose payments was with Kim Beazley, because he’s got to get the money that he’s going to save from fall back somewhere, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory is a party to that agreement with Kim Beazley, and there’s where the risk lies. I table the Commonwealth Hansard which the Leader of the Opposition was able to read and not understand.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition upholds the values of equity and natural justice and procedural fairness but unfortunately does not apply them to herself. On many occasions we have had, as ministers being asked questions in this House, the need to respond to the Leader of the Opposition when she quotes from documents. However, as she cannot be trusted to quote appropriately and fully and put the quote in full context, we will not answer the question because we check the document first to see that she is telling the truth. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday gave us yet another example of her master of deceptiveness.
The Leader of the Opposition asked a question yesterday and she quoted some remarks in the Federal Parliament out of the Federal Parliamentary Hansard of one Mr Slipper, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Finance and Administration. Now, quite appropriately, she could ask the question in relation to what Mr Slipper said if she read the whole of the transcript from Hansard, but of course she did not because it did not suit her.
Mr Stirling: No.
Mr REED: ‘No’ says the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and that is a good point. So she either read it and understood it or did not read it and understand it. So did you not understand it or did you misrepresent it? You can’t say it was either or both. If you’re going to get into the equity business, if you’re going to be spouting the honesty and the natural justice, what about practising it yourself? The fact is that Clare Martin can’t have it both ways. She’s either got to be bright enough to read Hansard, and she’s got to know that she’s knowingly deceiving Territorians, or she doesn’t understand it. You’ve got to tell us which way it is.
I’ll read into Hansard the circumstances of the point that I’m making as regards her misrepresentation, because had she read the full comment, or if she’d even read the question her boss had asked after Mr Slipper, she would have understood that she was misleading Territorians in asking the question:
My intention, which is entirely clear from the context of my remarks, was to refer to general purpose payments, [not SPPs], as I was making the obvious point that the states will be receiving all the revenue from the GST in return for certain other general payments the states currently receive. There is no intention to cut aggregate specific purpose payments to the states, and this is perfectly clear from clause 5(v) of the intergovernmental agreement signed by all Labor state premiers as the opposition well knows.
You, the opposition leader, misled this House. She misled Territorians. She has now been proven once again as a master of deception but it is she who has to answer to Territorians ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the minister wants to allege that the Leader of the Opposition has misled the House, it’s a very serious charge, and one that if he fully believes, should go to the Privileges Committee. He ought to withdraw it, or send it to the Privileges Committee, or move a substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: The standing orders are fairly clear on this. You can’t express either directly or by innuendo any misconduct or any attempted misconduct, or misleading of another member of this House. I would have to rule there’s a point or order. But again, I would say that both sides of the House regularly get away with that sort of comment. It seems to me that this morning we’re all being a little pedantic, but I’m prepared to ask that the comment be withdrawn.
Mr REED: I am happy to withdraw the remark, and acknowledge the tenderness of members opposite. It’s interesting to note, of course, that when they call members on this side of the House racists or condoning apartheid policies and being an apartheid government, being red necks, they’re not so sensitive.
So, SPPs, special purpose payments to the states and territories, as Mr Slipper himself said in his personal explanation in parliament ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr REED: I must respond to the outburst by the member for Nhulunbuy,. The last time he had an outburst like this, publicly, was about, I think, mandatory sentencing over the Christmas period, and it so offended Territorians that one of them put a sign on the Stuart Highway: ‘Having a party? Need a clown? Hire Syd Stirling’. That’s what Territorians think of you. I’d gladly give you a copy. I’d table a copy, because those Territorians who didn’t see it or were away on holidays will be very amused.
From the point of view of the Hansard, there was no break in the discussion or the contribution. I table the Hansard. It was in the same debate, it was on the same page as Mr Slipper’s report in Hansard, but you were deceitful enough to let it go.
The only threat to special purpose payments was with Kim Beazley, because he’s got to get the money that he’s going to save from fall back somewhere, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory is a party to that agreement with Kim Beazley, and there’s where the risk lies. I table the Commonwealth Hansard which the Leader of the Opposition was able to read and not understand.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016