Ms MARTIN - 2000-11-28
From the Chief Minister and the Treasurer we have heard three different reasons for why Paul Everingham’s transmission line was purchased.
Firstly, the Treasurer stated the government had exercised an ‘option’ to buy the line. Three days later he described it as an ‘obligation’. Chief Minister, the word you have used is that there was an ‘opportunity’ to buy the line.
There are 43 million good reasons why Territorians want to know which of these the purchase of the line represented: ‘option’ from the Treasurer, ‘obligation’ a few days later from the Treasurer, and now ‘opportunity’ from the Chief Minister.Which is it, and will you produce the evidence that proves your case?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, if there were 43 million opportunities for Territorians to find out the reason aligned with the purchase they would be waiting a long time for the truth if they waited for the Labor Party in the Northern Territory who were given the opportunity for a briefing on this subject some time ago - and to this day have refused that briefing.
As all members will know, the Treasurer will present a detailed ministerial statement on the whole history of that transmission line, and the reasons behind its purchase. From that statement, I am sure all Territorians who are of rational and sane mind, apart from the seven opposite, will understand the strategic reasons the line was purchased by the government and the history behind the line.
It is interesting that the name ‘Everingham’ was raised by the opposition. I find it almost laughable that Mr Syd Stirling will talk about Mr Everingham as one of our mates when Mr Paul Everingham has been ringing up and briefing, to use the member for Nhulunbuy’s words, the Leader of the Opposition on this subject.
Ms Martin: Paul and I go back a long way. He does not think much of you.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘He does not think much of you’. Well, I don’t know whether that is the case or not, but if he doesn’t think much of this Chief Minister it is because of this: We stick up for the rights of Territorians. We stick up for Territorian taxpayers to ensure they get a good deal, and for the information of ...
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker.The Chief Minister has had a few minutes now and he has not got to the crux of the question, which I spelt out very specifically. I remind the Chief Minister that we really are seeking an answer to three different descriptions we have had ...
Mr SPEAKER: I believe you have made your point of order, but there is no point of order. In fact, I think if the opposition members were inclined to refrain from so much interjection we might hear something of the answer.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It might come as some interest to the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague that their chief informant on this whole episode was sidelined in the project many months ago by his principals and was of no interest to the Northern Territory government in terms of this project or any other project, and I certainly would suggest that as a spokesperson for Hancock.
She asks why we have used the words ‘option’, ‘obligation’ and ‘opportunity’. It is because, as the Treasurer will outline, one sees the history of this whole episode in terms of the way the contractual arrangement evolved with this powerline, and the word ‘obligation’, ‘option’ or ‘opportunity’ could be used many times during the project.
In terms of the decision the government made, there was some doubt as to whether the Northern Territory government had an obligation to buy the line. That is why we were in the court. There was an option provided to buy the line by the 10 year review, and the Northern Territory government took the opportunity. It was an obligation, an option and an opportunity, if you want to use all those words together.
Firstly, the Treasurer stated the government had exercised an ‘option’ to buy the line. Three days later he described it as an ‘obligation’. Chief Minister, the word you have used is that there was an ‘opportunity’ to buy the line.
There are 43 million good reasons why Territorians want to know which of these the purchase of the line represented: ‘option’ from the Treasurer, ‘obligation’ a few days later from the Treasurer, and now ‘opportunity’ from the Chief Minister.Which is it, and will you produce the evidence that proves your case?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, if there were 43 million opportunities for Territorians to find out the reason aligned with the purchase they would be waiting a long time for the truth if they waited for the Labor Party in the Northern Territory who were given the opportunity for a briefing on this subject some time ago - and to this day have refused that briefing.
As all members will know, the Treasurer will present a detailed ministerial statement on the whole history of that transmission line, and the reasons behind its purchase. From that statement, I am sure all Territorians who are of rational and sane mind, apart from the seven opposite, will understand the strategic reasons the line was purchased by the government and the history behind the line.
It is interesting that the name ‘Everingham’ was raised by the opposition. I find it almost laughable that Mr Syd Stirling will talk about Mr Everingham as one of our mates when Mr Paul Everingham has been ringing up and briefing, to use the member for Nhulunbuy’s words, the Leader of the Opposition on this subject.
Ms Martin: Paul and I go back a long way. He does not think much of you.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘He does not think much of you’. Well, I don’t know whether that is the case or not, but if he doesn’t think much of this Chief Minister it is because of this: We stick up for the rights of Territorians. We stick up for Territorian taxpayers to ensure they get a good deal, and for the information of ...
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker.The Chief Minister has had a few minutes now and he has not got to the crux of the question, which I spelt out very specifically. I remind the Chief Minister that we really are seeking an answer to three different descriptions we have had ...
Mr SPEAKER: I believe you have made your point of order, but there is no point of order. In fact, I think if the opposition members were inclined to refrain from so much interjection we might hear something of the answer.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It might come as some interest to the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague that their chief informant on this whole episode was sidelined in the project many months ago by his principals and was of no interest to the Northern Territory government in terms of this project or any other project, and I certainly would suggest that as a spokesperson for Hancock.
She asks why we have used the words ‘option’, ‘obligation’ and ‘opportunity’. It is because, as the Treasurer will outline, one sees the history of this whole episode in terms of the way the contractual arrangement evolved with this powerline, and the word ‘obligation’, ‘option’ or ‘opportunity’ could be used many times during the project.
In terms of the decision the government made, there was some doubt as to whether the Northern Territory government had an obligation to buy the line. That is why we were in the court. There was an option provided to buy the line by the 10 year review, and the Northern Territory government took the opportunity. It was an obligation, an option and an opportunity, if you want to use all those words together.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016