Mr HATTON - 1999-02-23
The Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party has consistently been somewhat embarrassed by its annual returns for the Australian Electoral Commission. Who can forget the extraordinary admission by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party that they lost money on chook raffles in their 1993-94 return. While the humour of these examples cannot be disputed ...
Mr Stirling: At least we paid for our own polling..
Mr HATTON: I think I have hit a raw nerve. This is a sensitive issue for the member for Nhulunbuy but if he listens ...
Mr Stirling: It is a sensitive issue for you blokes. You have been ripping off the taxpayer for 10 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please get to the question. Order! Member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr HATTON: Does the Chief Minister have any evidence of far more serious discrepancies in the ALP’s current disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question. He used the word ‘evidence’, and if I might ask your indulgence, I would like to digress for a moment, because I think it is very important and it will lead toa fulsome answer ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, it will lead to a fulsome answer to the member’s question.I refer to a statement in parliament in the adjournment session by the member for Stuart regarding allegations of corruption against 2 Northern Territory government ministers. He made those allegations in the adjournment session ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is misleading the House. The member for Stuart, never at any time, claimed there was corruption against the ministers involved, and he should not allude to it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would have to take advice on that because it was my understanding, certainly from the reports, that that claim was made.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, when the honourable member for Stuart lays 70 documents on the table in this Chamber, all of which refer to allegations of corruption or misdoing by Northern Territory government ministers, it is not much of a mistake, I would think, to suggest that the member for Stuart was contributing to those allegations.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Are you speaking to the point of order?
Mr TOYNE: Yes, I am. I confirm that at no stage during my adjournment did I allude to corruption on the part of the ministers. I spoke through the entire period factually and at no time did I say to the media that there was corruption.
Members interjecting
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would think that in this situation, it would be best to stick to the words actually used. If, in fact, the member referred to the procedures that were undertaken at the time, perhaps we should stick to the same form of wording. I know that the newspaper reports indicated otherwise, and I can understand a response to that, but I would think that the words that were used could be construed to have led to a view that that was what you were alleging at the time.
I would ask the Chief Minister to stick to a form of words that is relevant to the adjournment speech.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for Stuart made statements in this House and tabled papers in such a way that led to the following media interpretation of his statement. That interpretation resulted in a major headline in Saturday’s paper headed ‘Ministers face police inquiries’. Included in the tabled papers and the statements that the member for Stuart made, he indicated that he was aware that the federal police agreement to an investigation of the allegations was among the 70 documents tabled in parliament on Thursday night by the member for Stuart.
He was well aware when he spoke in this House, and this is my point, that a police investigation was underway. This resulted in headlines in Saturday’s paper. I don’t blame the media for that, for making that interpretation based on the member for Stuart’s comments.
Today’s paper, in much smaller type, says: ‘There was no basis for criminal charges against Northern Territory Ministers accused of corruption, NT police told Labor MP, Mr Peter Toyne’. The point I make is that this House exists to progress the development of Territorians. It does not exist to enable members of this House to become the subject of a cheap media headline for one day. I would simply ask the member for Stuart to reflect on the fact that, as he was aware that the investigation was on foot, by simply waiting 72 hours he would have received the information that is being produced today. The ministers in question and other bureaucrats who are the subject of allegations by Mr Collins would not be the subject of this particular headline that came out on Saturday, and which came as a result of the member for Stuart’s comments.
If he has no feeling for the ministers themselves, that’s fine, I’m sure that the ministers are big enough to accept these sorts of things. But there are families involved in this and these particular ministers are absolutely free of any corruption. It is totally irresponsible for the member for Stuart to have acted in the way he did in the House last Thursday.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: If we’re going to talk about fact and fiction, I will get to the substance of the member for Nightcliff’s question.
We are all aware, as he said, that the Labor Party revealed after the 1994 election in their returns that they actually lost money on a chook raffle. What I am about to say ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I understand they lost $11 000 in that particular chook raffle. What I am pointing to here might reveal further incompetence on the part of the opposition. I will go through the facts as they are presented to me.
A confidential internal review of the results of the ALP election was leaked to this side of the House and has been the subject of comments in this parliament previously. Within that particular confidential review, on page 5 of that review and I’ll table page 5, the document itself has been tabled previously in this House, but page 5, which I will table now to refresh members ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, this may be of interest to Territorians, because the Labor opposition ...
Mr Stirling: interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ... has made much ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much of this monologue from a number of members on the opposition benches. I would ask you, please, to tone it down. Short, sharp interjections are fine, I’m happy to have them, but I’m not going to put up with continual monologues.
Mr Stirling: A bit boring, this.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Well, it might be boring for you, but in the face of a Labor opposition that has been rolling out allegations of misdoings on this side of the House ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I’m trying to get through this so that Territorians who are interested might be able to listen to what I’m saying. It’s important that if you sling mud, you answer questions with regards to your own propriety.
On page 5 of that review, the statement reads: ‘In terms of resources and communication, the national secretariat of the ALP contributed $56 000 to the costs of our advertising placements’, written in that particular review.
I’ve looked at the returns to the Electoral Office of the ALP for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98. We’re not talking about an omission here, we’re talking about information that is in their own document, $56 000 from the federal ALP secretariat. If one looks at the ...
Member interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Perhaps you might conduct an enquiry into what I’m leading to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, in the return to the Australian Electoral Office from the NT Labor Party in 1996-97, in the area where you would expect to find this sort of information detailed - ‘Persons and organisations from whom $1500 or more was received’ - there is no mention of the $56 000 that was mentioned as being contributed by the national secretariat.
We then move to 1997 ...
Ms Martin: Let us have an inquiry into political funding.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can get on her feet and answer it. In the 1997-98 return, there is a mention of the ALP national secretariat contributing $10 495.68.Now $10 000 ...
Mr TOYNE: Point of order, Mr Speaker! Aren’t we supposed to have succinct answers in Question Time?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe the Chief Minister would probably have completed his answer if there had been silence from the members opposite. I would ask members opposite to refrain from so much interjection. There is far too much and I think some of you are treading on very shaky ground at the present time.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So there is a $40 000 shortfall in what they have revealed to the Electoral Commission. I refer to the Electoral Commission’s requirements in terms of funding and disclosure. These are facts: ‘Political parties are to report all gifts and donations received during the disclosure period ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: ‘Not only cash donations, but gifts in kind must also be disclosed.’ That is a pretty simple statement. Also in that document we see under the heading ‘Including false and misleading information in disclosure return’ that: ‘a person who knowingly lodges a disclosure return on behalf of a candidate or Senate group, which contains false or misleading information, is punishable by a fine of up to $5000’.
That is the crux of the question. This is not omission, as they have claimed in the past. This is not just sloppy paperwork, and this is not a poor chook raffle. This is 2 returns, over an extended period, which clearly point to the fact that there was the $40 000 shortfall in what the Labor Party revealed to the Electoral Commission about what they have received from the national secretariat. I think all Territorians are entitled to ask the question why ...
Mr Bailey: Let’s have an inquiry on political funding.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Is it in-confidence, or is it mischievous in its intent? I ask the opposition to provide an answer as soon as possible.
Mr Stirling: At least we paid for our own polling..
Mr HATTON: I think I have hit a raw nerve. This is a sensitive issue for the member for Nhulunbuy but if he listens ...
Mr Stirling: It is a sensitive issue for you blokes. You have been ripping off the taxpayer for 10 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please get to the question. Order! Member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr HATTON: Does the Chief Minister have any evidence of far more serious discrepancies in the ALP’s current disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question. He used the word ‘evidence’, and if I might ask your indulgence, I would like to digress for a moment, because I think it is very important and it will lead toa fulsome answer ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, it will lead to a fulsome answer to the member’s question.I refer to a statement in parliament in the adjournment session by the member for Stuart regarding allegations of corruption against 2 Northern Territory government ministers. He made those allegations in the adjournment session ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is misleading the House. The member for Stuart, never at any time, claimed there was corruption against the ministers involved, and he should not allude to it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would have to take advice on that because it was my understanding, certainly from the reports, that that claim was made.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, when the honourable member for Stuart lays 70 documents on the table in this Chamber, all of which refer to allegations of corruption or misdoing by Northern Territory government ministers, it is not much of a mistake, I would think, to suggest that the member for Stuart was contributing to those allegations.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Are you speaking to the point of order?
Mr TOYNE: Yes, I am. I confirm that at no stage during my adjournment did I allude to corruption on the part of the ministers. I spoke through the entire period factually and at no time did I say to the media that there was corruption.
Members interjecting
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would think that in this situation, it would be best to stick to the words actually used. If, in fact, the member referred to the procedures that were undertaken at the time, perhaps we should stick to the same form of wording. I know that the newspaper reports indicated otherwise, and I can understand a response to that, but I would think that the words that were used could be construed to have led to a view that that was what you were alleging at the time.
I would ask the Chief Minister to stick to a form of words that is relevant to the adjournment speech.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for Stuart made statements in this House and tabled papers in such a way that led to the following media interpretation of his statement. That interpretation resulted in a major headline in Saturday’s paper headed ‘Ministers face police inquiries’. Included in the tabled papers and the statements that the member for Stuart made, he indicated that he was aware that the federal police agreement to an investigation of the allegations was among the 70 documents tabled in parliament on Thursday night by the member for Stuart.
He was well aware when he spoke in this House, and this is my point, that a police investigation was underway. This resulted in headlines in Saturday’s paper. I don’t blame the media for that, for making that interpretation based on the member for Stuart’s comments.
Today’s paper, in much smaller type, says: ‘There was no basis for criminal charges against Northern Territory Ministers accused of corruption, NT police told Labor MP, Mr Peter Toyne’. The point I make is that this House exists to progress the development of Territorians. It does not exist to enable members of this House to become the subject of a cheap media headline for one day. I would simply ask the member for Stuart to reflect on the fact that, as he was aware that the investigation was on foot, by simply waiting 72 hours he would have received the information that is being produced today. The ministers in question and other bureaucrats who are the subject of allegations by Mr Collins would not be the subject of this particular headline that came out on Saturday, and which came as a result of the member for Stuart’s comments.
If he has no feeling for the ministers themselves, that’s fine, I’m sure that the ministers are big enough to accept these sorts of things. But there are families involved in this and these particular ministers are absolutely free of any corruption. It is totally irresponsible for the member for Stuart to have acted in the way he did in the House last Thursday.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: If we’re going to talk about fact and fiction, I will get to the substance of the member for Nightcliff’s question.
We are all aware, as he said, that the Labor Party revealed after the 1994 election in their returns that they actually lost money on a chook raffle. What I am about to say ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: I understand they lost $11 000 in that particular chook raffle. What I am pointing to here might reveal further incompetence on the part of the opposition. I will go through the facts as they are presented to me.
A confidential internal review of the results of the ALP election was leaked to this side of the House and has been the subject of comments in this parliament previously. Within that particular confidential review, on page 5 of that review and I’ll table page 5, the document itself has been tabled previously in this House, but page 5, which I will table now to refresh members ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, this may be of interest to Territorians, because the Labor opposition ...
Mr Stirling: interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ... has made much ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much of this monologue from a number of members on the opposition benches. I would ask you, please, to tone it down. Short, sharp interjections are fine, I’m happy to have them, but I’m not going to put up with continual monologues.
Mr Stirling: A bit boring, this.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Well, it might be boring for you, but in the face of a Labor opposition that has been rolling out allegations of misdoings on this side of the House ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I’m trying to get through this so that Territorians who are interested might be able to listen to what I’m saying. It’s important that if you sling mud, you answer questions with regards to your own propriety.
On page 5 of that review, the statement reads: ‘In terms of resources and communication, the national secretariat of the ALP contributed $56 000 to the costs of our advertising placements’, written in that particular review.
I’ve looked at the returns to the Electoral Office of the ALP for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98. We’re not talking about an omission here, we’re talking about information that is in their own document, $56 000 from the federal ALP secretariat. If one looks at the ...
Member interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Perhaps you might conduct an enquiry into what I’m leading to ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, in the return to the Australian Electoral Office from the NT Labor Party in 1996-97, in the area where you would expect to find this sort of information detailed - ‘Persons and organisations from whom $1500 or more was received’ - there is no mention of the $56 000 that was mentioned as being contributed by the national secretariat.
We then move to 1997 ...
Ms Martin: Let us have an inquiry into political funding.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can get on her feet and answer it. In the 1997-98 return, there is a mention of the ALP national secretariat contributing $10 495.68.Now $10 000 ...
Mr TOYNE: Point of order, Mr Speaker! Aren’t we supposed to have succinct answers in Question Time?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I believe the Chief Minister would probably have completed his answer if there had been silence from the members opposite. I would ask members opposite to refrain from so much interjection. There is far too much and I think some of you are treading on very shaky ground at the present time.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So there is a $40 000 shortfall in what they have revealed to the Electoral Commission. I refer to the Electoral Commission’s requirements in terms of funding and disclosure. These are facts: ‘Political parties are to report all gifts and donations received during the disclosure period ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: ‘Not only cash donations, but gifts in kind must also be disclosed.’ That is a pretty simple statement. Also in that document we see under the heading ‘Including false and misleading information in disclosure return’ that: ‘a person who knowingly lodges a disclosure return on behalf of a candidate or Senate group, which contains false or misleading information, is punishable by a fine of up to $5000’.
That is the crux of the question. This is not omission, as they have claimed in the past. This is not just sloppy paperwork, and this is not a poor chook raffle. This is 2 returns, over an extended period, which clearly point to the fact that there was the $40 000 shortfall in what the Labor Party revealed to the Electoral Commission about what they have received from the national secretariat. I think all Territorians are entitled to ask the question why ...
Mr Bailey: Let’s have an inquiry on political funding.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Is it in-confidence, or is it mischievous in its intent? I ask the opposition to provide an answer as soon as possible.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016