Dr LIM - 1996-10-09
I was in the Chamber last night and heard the member for Fannie Bay's adjournment speech, couched in legal talk. Obviously it was written for her. In light of her admission in the House last night that she had misled the parliament when making allegations regarding the Alice Springs Correctional Centre - something she has done on and off for some time - will the minister clarify the facts regarding this facility's construction?
Ms Martin: I confessed to getting the date wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is amazing. I did actually listen to the contribution of the member for Fannie Bay in the adjournment debate last night. I suppose, at the extreme, it could have been regarded as an apology and most certainly it was an admission that she had misled parliament during the committee stage debate.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Nightcliff has been in this Assembly long enough to know that, particularly when the proceedings are being broadcast, if he wants to reflect on the behaviour of a member he must do so by way of a substantive motion. If he wants to make those comments, he has to move a substantive motion. He is not doing that and his reflections on the actions of my colleague are quite out of order.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, she is the one who said it in the adjournment debate last night. I was only referring to the comments she made last night.
Mr SPEAKER: I understood you to say that she may have misled parliament.
Mr HATTON: No, Mr Speaker. I said that she admitted to having misled parliament, last night in the adjournment debate.
Mr SPEAKER: In that case, there is no point of order.
Page 1641
Mr HATTON: I accept that the honourable member did do the right thing last night, albeit in a timid way, and stand up and admit ...
Mr Bailey: Something your colleague from Katherine has not had the guts to do.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, I accept the fact that she has admitted that she misled parliament. I do not propose to take any further action concerning that particular incident. Unfortunately, the member for Fannie Bay has developed quite a reputation for this sort of behaviour. Let us look at it. The Sunday Territorian of 30 February 1994 carried an article by Dave Nason that said: `Martin starts in old-fashioned way - by lying'. It went on:
The former 8DDD Morning Show presenter Clare Martin began her political career in the time-honoured
fashion this week - telling lies about her interest in standing for the ALP in Casuarina. In doing so,
her political debut was not only inauspicious ...'
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Even by way of quotation, the minister cannot do this. It is out of order. He cannot quote someone accusing the member of lying and adopt it in that way. It is quite out of order. If he wants to attack the member for Fannie Bay and censure her, or if he wants to drag her before the Committee of Privileges, he cannot do it in Question Time with the help of a dorothy dixer.
Mr SPEAKER: As I understand it, the minister is quoting from a newspaper which is a part of the public record at the present time. It is nothing new.
Mr BELL: Mr Speaker, it does not matter whether it is part of the public record or not. If the minister wants to adopt it and repeat it as truth, documenting his own statements, he has to do it by way of a substantive motion, and he cannot do it in Question Time - end of story.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to be wary in this regard. In fact, the information that he has provided to the House is a matter of the public record. It has been debated and quoted in this House previously.
Mr Bailey: So it is okay for me to call the member for Katherine a liar, because that has been debated and substantiated?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has not been substantiated.
Mr Bailey: Yes, it has. Your own Clerk told me where he got his information that was wrong. He is a liar.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark, Mr Speaker.
Page 1642
Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask the minister to be careful in this regard in drawing any conclusions from the information that he is providing to the House. He was asked a fairly specific question and I believe he should contain his answer to the parameters of that question.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I ask that the member for Wanguri be required to withdraw also the remark he made to the effect that it has been substantiated that I have been a liar.
Mr SPEAKER: I did indicate that that had not been substantiated and that the member should not make that sort of assertion, and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw, but ...
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri will resume his seat. He is treading on very dangerous ground.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, obviously the member for MacDonnell is running interference for the member for Fannie Bay. I table this press article. I will allow all honourable members to draw their own conclusions from the transcript of interview.
Mr Bailey: You said that Modular Medical would be ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: It is in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: You lied then, didn't you?
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I ask for that to be withdrawn.
Mr Bell: You are not being sensitive, are you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Editor's note: Comments by the member for Wanguri
expunged by motion of the Assembly.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, it seems that members do not want to address the range of other areas where the member for Fannie Bay ...
Mr Bailey: Do it in an adjournment debate.
Mr HATTON: I am happy to deal with it in an adjournment debate or elsewhere. The member for Fannie Bay has been caught out badly on many occasions in public releases. I have them here and I am happy to go through them. In the interests of brevity, I will not do it on this occasion.
Page 1643
She asked 4 specific questions last night. The first was: `Can the minister tell me whether the prison numbers have reached their initial capacity at the Alice Springs jail?' The answer is no. The second question was: `What is that number?' The normal operational capacity, without double-bunking, is approximately 300. As of 9.45 this morning, there were 266 prisoners in Alice Springs Correctional Centre, 242 inside the wire and 24 in the open cottages. Question 3 was: `Has the jail had to look at the use of double-bunking arrangements?' Double-bunking has been part of the design for an extensive period and facilities have been designed to cater for those requirements in terms of infrastructure etc. We have not had to look at double-bunking. Question 4 was: `If so, can the minister tell me whether double-bunking is easily achieved or does the department have to purchase additional facilities, bedding or other materials to accommodate these new arrangements?' Double-bunking will be installed progressively as required. Some is in place already. Some beds are being constructed in-house and some brought from the old jail and refurbished. Additional bedding etc will be provided as prisoner numbers rise in the normal course.
The above matters have been addressed on numerous occasions over the past 2 to 3 years. There is a substantial amount of information in the Parliamentary Record and in departmental annual reports covering the progressive development of the institution and the gradual increase in capacity commensurate with cost increases. The matter has been totally transparent. While the overall capacity can be stated at approximately 500, with total double-bunking at full capacity, with some crowding, the jail could be extended to accommodate approximately 600. This would not be desirable in the normal course of events. It needs to be appreciated also that operational capacity depends on the classification break-up at any one time. This will vary and will determine the absolute numbers.
I trust the member for Fannie Bay has listened to those answers and will not persist with her gobbledegook. I ask her to admit now that she has been running a scam and a beat-up in relation to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. On numerous occasions she has made allegations such as that heating and airconditioning infrastructure have been removed from the design to save costs. They were never a feature of the agreed final design. She said the prison needs 130 staff when, in fact, an agreement has been signed for 122. She said there was an internal audit report which was never prepared. It is time she came clean on everything, stopped running this scam and admitted that she has been trying to beat up a storm. She should recognise that she is no longer working for 8DDD. She has responsibilities in this House to bring some semblance of truth and honesty to the way she goes about her business.
Page 1644
Ms Martin: I confessed to getting the date wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is amazing. I did actually listen to the contribution of the member for Fannie Bay in the adjournment debate last night. I suppose, at the extreme, it could have been regarded as an apology and most certainly it was an admission that she had misled parliament during the committee stage debate.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Nightcliff has been in this Assembly long enough to know that, particularly when the proceedings are being broadcast, if he wants to reflect on the behaviour of a member he must do so by way of a substantive motion. If he wants to make those comments, he has to move a substantive motion. He is not doing that and his reflections on the actions of my colleague are quite out of order.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, she is the one who said it in the adjournment debate last night. I was only referring to the comments she made last night.
Mr SPEAKER: I understood you to say that she may have misled parliament.
Mr HATTON: No, Mr Speaker. I said that she admitted to having misled parliament, last night in the adjournment debate.
Mr SPEAKER: In that case, there is no point of order.
Page 1641
Mr HATTON: I accept that the honourable member did do the right thing last night, albeit in a timid way, and stand up and admit ...
Mr Bailey: Something your colleague from Katherine has not had the guts to do.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, I accept the fact that she has admitted that she misled parliament. I do not propose to take any further action concerning that particular incident. Unfortunately, the member for Fannie Bay has developed quite a reputation for this sort of behaviour. Let us look at it. The Sunday Territorian of 30 February 1994 carried an article by Dave Nason that said: `Martin starts in old-fashioned way - by lying'. It went on:
The former 8DDD Morning Show presenter Clare Martin began her political career in the time-honoured
fashion this week - telling lies about her interest in standing for the ALP in Casuarina. In doing so,
her political debut was not only inauspicious ...'
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Even by way of quotation, the minister cannot do this. It is out of order. He cannot quote someone accusing the member of lying and adopt it in that way. It is quite out of order. If he wants to attack the member for Fannie Bay and censure her, or if he wants to drag her before the Committee of Privileges, he cannot do it in Question Time with the help of a dorothy dixer.
Mr SPEAKER: As I understand it, the minister is quoting from a newspaper which is a part of the public record at the present time. It is nothing new.
Mr BELL: Mr Speaker, it does not matter whether it is part of the public record or not. If the minister wants to adopt it and repeat it as truth, documenting his own statements, he has to do it by way of a substantive motion, and he cannot do it in Question Time - end of story.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to be wary in this regard. In fact, the information that he has provided to the House is a matter of the public record. It has been debated and quoted in this House previously.
Mr Bailey: So it is okay for me to call the member for Katherine a liar, because that has been debated and substantiated?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has not been substantiated.
Mr Bailey: Yes, it has. Your own Clerk told me where he got his information that was wrong. He is a liar.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark, Mr Speaker.
Page 1642
Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask the minister to be careful in this regard in drawing any conclusions from the information that he is providing to the House. He was asked a fairly specific question and I believe he should contain his answer to the parameters of that question.
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I ask that the member for Wanguri be required to withdraw also the remark he made to the effect that it has been substantiated that I have been a liar.
Mr SPEAKER: I did indicate that that had not been substantiated and that the member should not make that sort of assertion, and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw, but ...
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Wanguri will resume his seat. He is treading on very dangerous ground.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, obviously the member for MacDonnell is running interference for the member for Fannie Bay. I table this press article. I will allow all honourable members to draw their own conclusions from the transcript of interview.
Mr Bailey: You said that Modular Medical would be ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: It is in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: You lied then, didn't you?
Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I ask for that to be withdrawn.
Mr Bell: You are not being sensitive, are you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Editor's note: Comments by the member for Wanguri
expunged by motion of the Assembly.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, it seems that members do not want to address the range of other areas where the member for Fannie Bay ...
Mr Bailey: Do it in an adjournment debate.
Mr HATTON: I am happy to deal with it in an adjournment debate or elsewhere. The member for Fannie Bay has been caught out badly on many occasions in public releases. I have them here and I am happy to go through them. In the interests of brevity, I will not do it on this occasion.
Page 1643
She asked 4 specific questions last night. The first was: `Can the minister tell me whether the prison numbers have reached their initial capacity at the Alice Springs jail?' The answer is no. The second question was: `What is that number?' The normal operational capacity, without double-bunking, is approximately 300. As of 9.45 this morning, there were 266 prisoners in Alice Springs Correctional Centre, 242 inside the wire and 24 in the open cottages. Question 3 was: `Has the jail had to look at the use of double-bunking arrangements?' Double-bunking has been part of the design for an extensive period and facilities have been designed to cater for those requirements in terms of infrastructure etc. We have not had to look at double-bunking. Question 4 was: `If so, can the minister tell me whether double-bunking is easily achieved or does the department have to purchase additional facilities, bedding or other materials to accommodate these new arrangements?' Double-bunking will be installed progressively as required. Some is in place already. Some beds are being constructed in-house and some brought from the old jail and refurbished. Additional bedding etc will be provided as prisoner numbers rise in the normal course.
The above matters have been addressed on numerous occasions over the past 2 to 3 years. There is a substantial amount of information in the Parliamentary Record and in departmental annual reports covering the progressive development of the institution and the gradual increase in capacity commensurate with cost increases. The matter has been totally transparent. While the overall capacity can be stated at approximately 500, with total double-bunking at full capacity, with some crowding, the jail could be extended to accommodate approximately 600. This would not be desirable in the normal course of events. It needs to be appreciated also that operational capacity depends on the classification break-up at any one time. This will vary and will determine the absolute numbers.
I trust the member for Fannie Bay has listened to those answers and will not persist with her gobbledegook. I ask her to admit now that she has been running a scam and a beat-up in relation to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. On numerous occasions she has made allegations such as that heating and airconditioning infrastructure have been removed from the design to save costs. They were never a feature of the agreed final design. She said the prison needs 130 staff when, in fact, an agreement has been signed for 122. She said there was an internal audit report which was never prepared. It is time she came clean on everything, stopped running this scam and admitted that she has been trying to beat up a storm. She should recognise that she is no longer working for 8DDD. She has responsibilities in this House to bring some semblance of truth and honesty to the way she goes about her business.
Page 1644
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016