Mr HATTON - 1999-08-19
I have listened with some interest to the answers to both of the last two questions to the Minister for Housing. Given the policy and intent of the government in respect of public housing, to try to ensure that the maximum amount of public housing is available for those most in need rather than those most in greed and, secondly, given the extensive and increasing waiting lists in Nhulunbuy and the difficulties of getting access to land to build more public housing in Nhulunbuy, does the Chief Minister think it is fair and proper that the member for Nhulunbuy, who is on a very large salary - between $80 000 and $100 000 a year, maybe more - should continue to occupy public housing in Nhulunbuy at the expense of more deserving constituents? Is this a cunning way of getting an indirect subsidy from the government for his housing?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,on the face of what I’ve heard in this Chamber yesterday and today, I think what we have here is a disgraceful situation, frankly.
The member for Nhulunbuy is now the gutter boy for the opposition - either self appointed or appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. His job is to get down in the gutter. Of the seven dwarfs, he’s decided that he’s Snoopy. He’s going to get down there and snoop among the pecuniary interest forms.
Yesterday he raised allegations of impropriety on the part of the member for Nightcliff, asking was it fair that the member for Nightcliff should use his position as an MLA to promote a business interest. The member for Nightcliff has answered that fully in the media, in the House and to me. I believe he is beyond reproach.
We then look not only at the self-appointed gutter boy, the member for Nhulunbuy, but also at the new boy behind him, the member for Wanguri. These are people who plead for better work by government to provide public housing for those who are most in need. The member for Wanguri at the same time is running around his electorate trying to stop an excellent development to provide aged care for constituents who live in the Leanyer area.
And we have a curious situation, to my mind, where a member of parliament who is on a salary package of the best part of $100 000 a year and owns or has a substantial interest in a house in Darwin, at 227 Lee Point Road, Wanguri - declared on his pecuniary interest form in 1997, 1998 and 1999 - occupying a Housing Commission home at reduced rent in Nhulunbuy. Such homes are put aside for those Territorians most in need.
I made the comment yesterday that if you’re going to throw stones, be damned sure you don’t live in a glass house. The member for Nhulunbuy, aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition, is quite happy to throw the stone. Well, the stone has bounced. I am intrigued, actually. I am going to do some research on this.
I ask a simple question of the Leader of the Opposition. From the point of view of principle and ethics, do you accept that a member of parliament on a salary package that is certainly above the eligibility criterion of $50 000, receiving a taxpayer-funded wage of the best part of $100 000 a year, owning a home in a high-profile area in Darwin, should continue to occupy a Housing Commission dwelling in Nhulunbuy, subsidised by the Territory taxpayer at a rent that is far below what others in Nhulunbuy have to pay for private accommodation? Would you not as Leader of the Opposition make a statement with regard to the ethics and integrity of a member of parliament in that situation?Would you not make a point of principle abouthow would you approach and deal with a member of parliament who acted in that way?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker,on the face of what I’ve heard in this Chamber yesterday and today, I think what we have here is a disgraceful situation, frankly.
The member for Nhulunbuy is now the gutter boy for the opposition - either self appointed or appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. His job is to get down in the gutter. Of the seven dwarfs, he’s decided that he’s Snoopy. He’s going to get down there and snoop among the pecuniary interest forms.
Yesterday he raised allegations of impropriety on the part of the member for Nightcliff, asking was it fair that the member for Nightcliff should use his position as an MLA to promote a business interest. The member for Nightcliff has answered that fully in the media, in the House and to me. I believe he is beyond reproach.
We then look not only at the self-appointed gutter boy, the member for Nhulunbuy, but also at the new boy behind him, the member for Wanguri. These are people who plead for better work by government to provide public housing for those who are most in need. The member for Wanguri at the same time is running around his electorate trying to stop an excellent development to provide aged care for constituents who live in the Leanyer area.
And we have a curious situation, to my mind, where a member of parliament who is on a salary package of the best part of $100 000 a year and owns or has a substantial interest in a house in Darwin, at 227 Lee Point Road, Wanguri - declared on his pecuniary interest form in 1997, 1998 and 1999 - occupying a Housing Commission home at reduced rent in Nhulunbuy. Such homes are put aside for those Territorians most in need.
I made the comment yesterday that if you’re going to throw stones, be damned sure you don’t live in a glass house. The member for Nhulunbuy, aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition, is quite happy to throw the stone. Well, the stone has bounced. I am intrigued, actually. I am going to do some research on this.
I ask a simple question of the Leader of the Opposition. From the point of view of principle and ethics, do you accept that a member of parliament on a salary package that is certainly above the eligibility criterion of $50 000, receiving a taxpayer-funded wage of the best part of $100 000 a year, owning a home in a high-profile area in Darwin, should continue to occupy a Housing Commission dwelling in Nhulunbuy, subsidised by the Territory taxpayer at a rent that is far below what others in Nhulunbuy have to pay for private accommodation? Would you not as Leader of the Opposition make a statement with regard to the ethics and integrity of a member of parliament in that situation?Would you not make a point of principle abouthow would you approach and deal with a member of parliament who acted in that way?
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016