Mr BAILEY - 1997-12-03
On 17 November, the minister told Territorians that the member for MacDonnell had suggested that a Yulara community advisory committee be established. On 18 November, the legislation incorporated what he said were the recommendations of the member for MacDonnell. That was not true. The Deputy Chief Minister repeated that claim in this House last Thursday night. He said that the member for MacDonnell included or put into the legislation those matters. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the draft legislation the minister provided to the opposition.
Leave granted.
Mr BAILEY: It is dated 12 November, more than 36 hours before the minister told the member for MacDonnell about the dissolution of the Yulara Town Council. The matters that the minister claimed the member for MacDonnell had included in the bill were already in the bill. Is it not a fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has cooked up a story to cover the member for MacDonnell’s political backside? Is it not a fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has been caught out misleading this House and Territorians again?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I assume that this is part of the ‘new evidence’ that the Leader of the Opposition has said she would produce today in an attempt to substantiate the fallacies that members opposite have pursued over the last couple of days. It is interesting to note that, on the radio this morning and in her previous comments in relation to these matters, the Leader of the Opposition has been very careful not to repeat outside this House the things that she has been saying inside. She knows that what she has been putting forward cannot be substantiated.
This matter, and the other activities of opposition members over the last few days, can be related to their confidential, ‘internal ALP use only’ report that the Chief Minister referred to a couple of days ago. A dot-point on page 2 states ...
Mr Stirling: Answer the question.
Mr REED: You do not like it, do you? It states: ‘Our vote in Katherine has collapsed to 25% and urgent action must be taken’. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the ‘urgent action’ has been occurring this week. Members opposite are embarrassed about the collapse of the vote in Katherine. This is simply a smear campaign in an effort to make up some ground.
The member for Wanguri, rather than quoting selectively from Hansard, should be able to recall that I also said in the debate last week that nothing is finalised until it goes to Cabinet.
Mr Stirling: You said he put it in.
Mr REED: He wrote and ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: He did his work as a member. It is a pity that members opposite are not as effective as the member for MacDonnell. Nothing is finalised until it goes to Cabinet. It went to Cabinet the Tuesday after. In sponsoring that submission, I made Cabinet aware of the letter written to me by the member for MacDonnell and of the fact that he
Page 63
thought it should definitely include the matters to which he referred ...
Mr Stirling: It was nothing to do with it.
Mr REED: It was everything to do with it because he was the local member making representations on behalf of his constituents. What goes to Cabinet and what is approved in Cabinet are 2 different things. As a result, however, of the strong representations from the member for MacDonnell, that was included in the legislation that was presented and subsequently passed in this House, to the benefit of the people of Yulara. If members opposite are not happy with the fact that the member for MacDonnell was successful in representing his constituents to ensure that there was protection for them in the legislation, it explains why they lost the seat of MacDonnell. The former representative was incapable of making representations as successfully as the current member does. That is why the opposition now numbers 7 and not 8.
Page 64
Leave granted.
Mr BAILEY: It is dated 12 November, more than 36 hours before the minister told the member for MacDonnell about the dissolution of the Yulara Town Council. The matters that the minister claimed the member for MacDonnell had included in the bill were already in the bill. Is it not a fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has cooked up a story to cover the member for MacDonnell’s political backside? Is it not a fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has been caught out misleading this House and Territorians again?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I assume that this is part of the ‘new evidence’ that the Leader of the Opposition has said she would produce today in an attempt to substantiate the fallacies that members opposite have pursued over the last couple of days. It is interesting to note that, on the radio this morning and in her previous comments in relation to these matters, the Leader of the Opposition has been very careful not to repeat outside this House the things that she has been saying inside. She knows that what she has been putting forward cannot be substantiated.
This matter, and the other activities of opposition members over the last few days, can be related to their confidential, ‘internal ALP use only’ report that the Chief Minister referred to a couple of days ago. A dot-point on page 2 states ...
Mr Stirling: Answer the question.
Mr REED: You do not like it, do you? It states: ‘Our vote in Katherine has collapsed to 25% and urgent action must be taken’. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the ‘urgent action’ has been occurring this week. Members opposite are embarrassed about the collapse of the vote in Katherine. This is simply a smear campaign in an effort to make up some ground.
The member for Wanguri, rather than quoting selectively from Hansard, should be able to recall that I also said in the debate last week that nothing is finalised until it goes to Cabinet.
Mr Stirling: You said he put it in.
Mr REED: He wrote and ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: He did his work as a member. It is a pity that members opposite are not as effective as the member for MacDonnell. Nothing is finalised until it goes to Cabinet. It went to Cabinet the Tuesday after. In sponsoring that submission, I made Cabinet aware of the letter written to me by the member for MacDonnell and of the fact that he
Page 63
thought it should definitely include the matters to which he referred ...
Mr Stirling: It was nothing to do with it.
Mr REED: It was everything to do with it because he was the local member making representations on behalf of his constituents. What goes to Cabinet and what is approved in Cabinet are 2 different things. As a result, however, of the strong representations from the member for MacDonnell, that was included in the legislation that was presented and subsequently passed in this House, to the benefit of the people of Yulara. If members opposite are not happy with the fact that the member for MacDonnell was successful in representing his constituents to ensure that there was protection for them in the legislation, it explains why they lost the seat of MacDonnell. The former representative was incapable of making representations as successfully as the current member does. That is why the opposition now numbers 7 and not 8.
Page 64
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016