Mr STIRLING - 1999-02-17
I seek leave to table a contract entered into between Newspoll and the Country Liberal Party administration and the $10 600 bill sent to Territory taxpayers. Will the honest, open and accountable new Chief Minister be moved to take action if it is shown that this payment of $10 600 was made for Country Liberal Party operatives to receive voter intention information for federal and Territory elections which had nothing to do with government going about government business?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have not seen the documentation. I will take the question on notice, but they would be wrong if they misunderstood my last statement. I am not interested.
Members interjecting!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the opposition
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition, you have been on fairly good behaviour over the last couple of days. I would ask you to keep it down. There is no necessity for the sort of interjections we are getting now. I would like to hear what the Chief Minister has to say. I am sure listeners on radio would be keen to hear it and the people in the gallery would be pleased to hear what he has to say.
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have two points. Firstly, I think the comment made by the member for Wanguri clarifies the point I am making. I refer you to Standing Order 121 which reads:
Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may be challenged only on a substantive motion, and questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be asked in writing.
The previous question and this question, I believe, are in contravention of that standing order. There is a clear imputation on the conduct and character of persons who are members of the Chamber. This should be done either by substantive motion by members of this Chamber or in writing for persons outside. That is done for the very good reason that there is some propriety in the approach in this House, and that people should have a chance to properly respond to very serious allegations.
Mr BAILEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear from the questions that we have asked, including a number of questions last year - in fact my understanding is that an actual censure motion went through with the details of allegations. We have asked the first question today saying that there are allegations made by Mr Andrew Coward and there is supporting evidence …
Mr PALMER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The honourable member for Wanguri has only offered to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri is speaking to the point of order.
Mr PALMER: He is using the point of order, Mr Speaker, to argue the case. He can only get to his feet, in some cases, to refute the point of order put by the honourable member for Nightcliff. He has not once referred either to standing orders, Pettifer’s House of Representatives practice, or Senate practice.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am prepared to hear what the member for Wanguri has to say.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, Standing Order 121, which is the point of order that the member for Nightcliff has raised, relates to questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons and must be raised by way of a substantive motion. Quite clearly, the introduction to the question referred to debates that had gone on previously in this parliament and about allegations that had been made. In fact, the question quite clearly to the Chief Minister was only: ‘Will the honest, open and accountable …’. If that is a critical or character destroying epithet, then I suspect we should stop using it, and maybe the Chief Minister, from his answers, should stop using it as well because it is actually untrue. But the question was: ‘Will he have an inquiry into these allegations?’ That was the question.
Member interjecting.
Mr BAILEY: We have a point of order suggesting that we cannot answer that question. We then asked another question and tabled a copy of the contract. Again, we asked the honest, open and accountable Chief Minister whether or not, if it is shown that this payment ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member for Wanguri has made his point, and I would rather not go on for too long on this. My view on this is that the question is related to a series of questions that were asked during the last sittings. It is not unlike questions that have been asked over many years in this parliament, and I rule that there is no point of order. But I understand that the Chief Minister has in fact answered the question and we will go on from there.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I only wish to say that this thing is dated 1992 and it is written in general terms. I hope the media get a copy. Anyone would make the reasonable observation that it is only part of a story. The story that’s been laid out so far has no substance to it, and for this to have any substance it would have to be coupled with worded questions etc. On the basis of this, it is just another piece of documentation.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have not seen the documentation. I will take the question on notice, but they would be wrong if they misunderstood my last statement. I am not interested.
Members interjecting!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the opposition
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition, you have been on fairly good behaviour over the last couple of days. I would ask you to keep it down. There is no necessity for the sort of interjections we are getting now. I would like to hear what the Chief Minister has to say. I am sure listeners on radio would be keen to hear it and the people in the gallery would be pleased to hear what he has to say.
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have two points. Firstly, I think the comment made by the member for Wanguri clarifies the point I am making. I refer you to Standing Order 121 which reads:
Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may be challenged only on a substantive motion, and questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be asked in writing.
The previous question and this question, I believe, are in contravention of that standing order. There is a clear imputation on the conduct and character of persons who are members of the Chamber. This should be done either by substantive motion by members of this Chamber or in writing for persons outside. That is done for the very good reason that there is some propriety in the approach in this House, and that people should have a chance to properly respond to very serious allegations.
Mr BAILEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear from the questions that we have asked, including a number of questions last year - in fact my understanding is that an actual censure motion went through with the details of allegations. We have asked the first question today saying that there are allegations made by Mr Andrew Coward and there is supporting evidence …
Mr PALMER: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The honourable member for Wanguri has only offered to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri is speaking to the point of order.
Mr PALMER: He is using the point of order, Mr Speaker, to argue the case. He can only get to his feet, in some cases, to refute the point of order put by the honourable member for Nightcliff. He has not once referred either to standing orders, Pettifer’s House of Representatives practice, or Senate practice.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am prepared to hear what the member for Wanguri has to say.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, Standing Order 121, which is the point of order that the member for Nightcliff has raised, relates to questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons and must be raised by way of a substantive motion. Quite clearly, the introduction to the question referred to debates that had gone on previously in this parliament and about allegations that had been made. In fact, the question quite clearly to the Chief Minister was only: ‘Will the honest, open and accountable …’. If that is a critical or character destroying epithet, then I suspect we should stop using it, and maybe the Chief Minister, from his answers, should stop using it as well because it is actually untrue. But the question was: ‘Will he have an inquiry into these allegations?’ That was the question.
Member interjecting.
Mr BAILEY: We have a point of order suggesting that we cannot answer that question. We then asked another question and tabled a copy of the contract. Again, we asked the honest, open and accountable Chief Minister whether or not, if it is shown that this payment ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member for Wanguri has made his point, and I would rather not go on for too long on this. My view on this is that the question is related to a series of questions that were asked during the last sittings. It is not unlike questions that have been asked over many years in this parliament, and I rule that there is no point of order. But I understand that the Chief Minister has in fact answered the question and we will go on from there.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I only wish to say that this thing is dated 1992 and it is written in general terms. I hope the media get a copy. Anyone would make the reasonable observation that it is only part of a story. The story that’s been laid out so far has no substance to it, and for this to have any substance it would have to be coupled with worded questions etc. On the basis of this, it is just another piece of documentation.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016