Ms FINOCCHIARO - 2013-03-27
Can the minister inform the House of the costs involved in the legal battle with Coca-Cola, Schweppes, and Lion over the container deposit legislation: a battle which was predicted by this government when in opposition, and which the Labor government was clearly warned of in their own legal advice?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I recall the original debates on the container deposit legislation that was introduced. Both the current minister for the Environment and I stood here for hours and pointed out to the government of the day that there were serious flaws in the legislative structure they had put together. Not only did we describe it, we described it chapter and verse, and what would happen if the Northern Territory government of the time, the Labor Party, did not do its job properly.
Everything that was predicted at the time has come to pass. Unfortunately, this irresponsible, reckless government clutched on to a legal opinion - which they claimed was put together by one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in this country - of what would carry the day. It turns out they never had a legal opinion in a finalised form. They had a draft legal opinion which did not, in any way, suggest they were out of the woods. In fact, it was heavily qualified, with all sorts of warnings about the issues we raised in this parliament. They were dishonest and misrepresented what they had in the legal opinion at the time. Therefore, we know it is dishonest and a party without integrity ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Why is the Attorney-General denying the opposition access to the Solicitor-General?
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Ms LAWRIE: Standing Order 113: relevance. He talked about the legal briefing and the legal technicalities, yet he denies opposition access to the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, which is unprecedented.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They were utterly, completely and culpably dishonest in what they said to this House. Small wonder we could not get that legal opinion from them. They were saying, ‘Oh my goodness gracious me, this will all be sweetness and light’. We argued they had failed – and failed utterly - at the time.
When we came to government we realised this scheme was in deep trouble by virtue of the fact this Labor Party had been utterly dishonest with this House and with Territorians. Now the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the inevitable legal bill that will be thrust in our face.
We, as a government, are prepared to pay for the legal bill, the legacy of that party’s incompetence, because we want to defend something which is not only a right for Territorians but is also a good idea. It is something we supported at the time. This former government should be embarrassed about the deceit.
We say to Coca-Cola Amatil, ‘We will fight you on the beaches and we will fight you in the towns’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Deceit has been ruled as offensive. He should do it by way of substantive motion or withdraw.
Mr Elferink: If you want us to do it by way of substantive motion, I am happy to.
Ms LAWRIE: Bring it on.
Mr Elferink: Your incompetence has been magnificent.
Ms LAWRIE: Withdraw it!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: You ruled on ‘deceit’ before.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I presume we will not sell Coke in Parliament House anymore.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: So ‘deceit’ is okay from now on in the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no point of order. The member for Nelson has the call.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I recall the original debates on the container deposit legislation that was introduced. Both the current minister for the Environment and I stood here for hours and pointed out to the government of the day that there were serious flaws in the legislative structure they had put together. Not only did we describe it, we described it chapter and verse, and what would happen if the Northern Territory government of the time, the Labor Party, did not do its job properly.
Everything that was predicted at the time has come to pass. Unfortunately, this irresponsible, reckless government clutched on to a legal opinion - which they claimed was put together by one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in this country - of what would carry the day. It turns out they never had a legal opinion in a finalised form. They had a draft legal opinion which did not, in any way, suggest they were out of the woods. In fact, it was heavily qualified, with all sorts of warnings about the issues we raised in this parliament. They were dishonest and misrepresented what they had in the legal opinion at the time. Therefore, we know it is dishonest and a party without integrity ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Why is the Attorney-General denying the opposition access to the Solicitor-General?
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Ms LAWRIE: Standing Order 113: relevance. He talked about the legal briefing and the legal technicalities, yet he denies opposition access to the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, which is unprecedented.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They were utterly, completely and culpably dishonest in what they said to this House. Small wonder we could not get that legal opinion from them. They were saying, ‘Oh my goodness gracious me, this will all be sweetness and light’. We argued they had failed – and failed utterly - at the time.
When we came to government we realised this scheme was in deep trouble by virtue of the fact this Labor Party had been utterly dishonest with this House and with Territorians. Now the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the inevitable legal bill that will be thrust in our face.
We, as a government, are prepared to pay for the legal bill, the legacy of that party’s incompetence, because we want to defend something which is not only a right for Territorians but is also a good idea. It is something we supported at the time. This former government should be embarrassed about the deceit.
We say to Coca-Cola Amatil, ‘We will fight you on the beaches and we will fight you in the towns’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Deceit has been ruled as offensive. He should do it by way of substantive motion or withdraw.
Mr Elferink: If you want us to do it by way of substantive motion, I am happy to.
Ms LAWRIE: Bring it on.
Mr Elferink: Your incompetence has been magnificent.
Ms LAWRIE: Withdraw it!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: You ruled on ‘deceit’ before.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I presume we will not sell Coke in Parliament House anymore.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: So ‘deceit’ is okay from now on in the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no point of order. The member for Nelson has the call.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016