Ms MARTIN - 2000-10-11
The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says:
A member of the Legislative Assembly who is a party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory under which goods or services are to be supplied to the Territory shall not take part in the discussion of a matter or vote on a question in the Legislative Assembly where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract.
That is the Self-Government Act. In simple terms, that means if an MLA has a contract with government and speaks in the Assembly on a matter that relates to that contract, they have broken the law. The penalty is disqualification from being a member of this Chamber.
When the member for Nightcliff spoke in the House on the payroll tax amendment that affected his company he also held a contract with the Department of Mines and Energy that was affected by that amendment. In doing so, the member for Nightcliff behaved unethically and illegally. He breached the Self-Government Act and should be disqualified as an MLA.
I ask the Chief Minister, what do you intend to do about this situation? Will you apply the law?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the simple answer based on that unfounded allegation is ‘nothing’. The law has not been broken. As I am advised, there is certainly no contract directly between the member, the member’s company, and a department in this government. There may be contracts between the member and individuals who are subsequently employed by a department but let Territorians be absolutely clear on this. The Leader of the Opposition can wax lyrical about codes of conduct and how she would organise things if ever she became the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I would remind Territorians that nothing stops the Leader of the Opposition from instituting those requirements on her members now. You do not have to be a Chief Minster to organise a code of conduct on your own members and we could go through a code of conduct starting with the Leader of the Opposition and she would fail badly right from the start.
I would remind members you do not have to be the Chief Minister to organise a superannuation scheme for your own members. She is trying to run the line that somehow as Chief Minister she would change the superannuation requirements for MLAs in the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! It is a serious question when it goes to the point of asking the Chief Minister whether he is going to apply the law in respect to the member for Nightcliff or not and he is walking around the question.
Mr SPEAKER: You would be aware that standing orders say that an answer must be relevant to the question and, as far as I am concerned, at this point, it is still relevant.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I am leading to the answer very clearly and that is this: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who said she would change the pension entitlements to help her members 12 months ago and then abandoned it quickly because of objections – not only of her own members but because any move in that direction would only affect new members coming into parliament. Territorians should understand when she waxes lyrical about superannuation changes she is only talking about people other than herself. Her entitlements would remain absolutely intact and that is the situation, as would the entitlements of every person sitting on that side of the Chamber. It would only be new members of parliament who would be affected. So that is ‘I am set up, I am happy. Thanks very much, bugger you’. That is what that is called.
But in regards to how I would act…
Ms MARTIN: Point of order, Mr Speaker! Do we have to listen to the Chief Minister say ‘bugger you’? Is that parliamentary?
Mr SPEAKER: Are you offended by it?
Ms MARTIN: I am offended by it, yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Would you withdraw, please.
Ms MARTIN: I think the member for Katherine would be, too.
Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the Chief Minister to withdraw those words.
Mr BURKE: I will refuse, Mr Speaker, considering the …
Mr SPEAKER: Please don’t.
Mr BURKE: Well, Mr Speaker, I bow to your judgement. I simply make the comment that considering the sorts of comments that the Leader of the Opposition makes in this Chamber, reflected in the Hansard, I would not consider that to be an offensive statement.
Now, in terms of how I will act if the law has been broken, I would simply say ‘decisively’. Territorians can be assured that if the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition are sustained, I will act decisively on the matter.
A member of the Legislative Assembly who is a party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory under which goods or services are to be supplied to the Territory shall not take part in the discussion of a matter or vote on a question in the Legislative Assembly where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract.
That is the Self-Government Act. In simple terms, that means if an MLA has a contract with government and speaks in the Assembly on a matter that relates to that contract, they have broken the law. The penalty is disqualification from being a member of this Chamber.
When the member for Nightcliff spoke in the House on the payroll tax amendment that affected his company he also held a contract with the Department of Mines and Energy that was affected by that amendment. In doing so, the member for Nightcliff behaved unethically and illegally. He breached the Self-Government Act and should be disqualified as an MLA.
I ask the Chief Minister, what do you intend to do about this situation? Will you apply the law?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the simple answer based on that unfounded allegation is ‘nothing’. The law has not been broken. As I am advised, there is certainly no contract directly between the member, the member’s company, and a department in this government. There may be contracts between the member and individuals who are subsequently employed by a department but let Territorians be absolutely clear on this. The Leader of the Opposition can wax lyrical about codes of conduct and how she would organise things if ever she became the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I would remind Territorians that nothing stops the Leader of the Opposition from instituting those requirements on her members now. You do not have to be a Chief Minster to organise a code of conduct on your own members and we could go through a code of conduct starting with the Leader of the Opposition and she would fail badly right from the start.
I would remind members you do not have to be the Chief Minister to organise a superannuation scheme for your own members. She is trying to run the line that somehow as Chief Minister she would change the superannuation requirements for MLAs in the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! It is a serious question when it goes to the point of asking the Chief Minister whether he is going to apply the law in respect to the member for Nightcliff or not and he is walking around the question.
Mr SPEAKER: You would be aware that standing orders say that an answer must be relevant to the question and, as far as I am concerned, at this point, it is still relevant.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I am leading to the answer very clearly and that is this: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who said she would change the pension entitlements to help her members 12 months ago and then abandoned it quickly because of objections – not only of her own members but because any move in that direction would only affect new members coming into parliament. Territorians should understand when she waxes lyrical about superannuation changes she is only talking about people other than herself. Her entitlements would remain absolutely intact and that is the situation, as would the entitlements of every person sitting on that side of the Chamber. It would only be new members of parliament who would be affected. So that is ‘I am set up, I am happy. Thanks very much, bugger you’. That is what that is called.
But in regards to how I would act…
Ms MARTIN: Point of order, Mr Speaker! Do we have to listen to the Chief Minister say ‘bugger you’? Is that parliamentary?
Mr SPEAKER: Are you offended by it?
Ms MARTIN: I am offended by it, yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Would you withdraw, please.
Ms MARTIN: I think the member for Katherine would be, too.
Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the Chief Minister to withdraw those words.
Mr BURKE: I will refuse, Mr Speaker, considering the …
Mr SPEAKER: Please don’t.
Mr BURKE: Well, Mr Speaker, I bow to your judgement. I simply make the comment that considering the sorts of comments that the Leader of the Opposition makes in this Chamber, reflected in the Hansard, I would not consider that to be an offensive statement.
Now, in terms of how I will act if the law has been broken, I would simply say ‘decisively’. Territorians can be assured that if the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition are sustained, I will act decisively on the matter.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016