2009-08-10
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 4 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I received the following letter, dated 6 August 2009, from the Leader of the Opposition in my office at 12.15 pm on Friday, 7 August. The letter reads as follows:
The letter has been signed by Mr Mills, Ms Purick, Ms Carney, Ms Anderson, Mr Bohlin, Mr Chandler, Mr Conlan, Mr Elferink, Mr Giles, Mr Styles, Mr Tollner, Mr Westra van Holthe and Mr Wood.
It is my opinion that this serious matter was sufficient to exercise my powers pursuant to sessional order of the Assembly dated 9 September 2008 to accede to the request.
For the Parliamentary Record, I read my response to the Leader of the Opposition. I will be tabling both these documents:
Honourable members, I table those letters.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have given permission for ABC TV, Channel 9 and the NT News to film and photograph the notice of motion.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on Friday, 14 August 2009, I shall move –
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion relating to priority being given to my notice given earlier this day.
Mr Henderson: Priority of what motion?
Mr MILLS: The notice of the motion I just presented.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, can you just – you were given permission to give notice of a motion of no confidence.
Mr MILLS: Correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is up to the Leader of Government Business. Precedence is a government matter. I call the Leader of Government Business.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the notice given by the Leader of the Opposition as a want of confidence motion. Indeed, this motion is the most serious motion that can come before this Assembly.
In this context also, Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 95, this item should have precedence over all other business as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. It is helpful for the House if I read Standing Order 95:
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in this context and accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and subject to section 24 of the Northern Territory Electoral Act, I move the following motion:
Madam Speaker, I am obviously moving a motion and members of the opposition will be responding to my motion. I will begin speaking to that motion I have moved.
I will preface my speech on the matter of adjourning this House until Friday to resolve this issue by saying that I believe the majority of Territorians want this matter resolved by this House and they want a resolution to occur as quickly as possible.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister have both said that an extraordinary general election is the last option. I also believe that Territorians expect us to bring wisdom, respect and integrity to this very serious debate, and for all of us to keep the best interests of the Territory as our top priority.
According to Westminster tradition, a motion of want of confidence in the government is the most serious of motions that can be dealt with by any legislature. If such a motion is sustained it has profound consequences which can lead to this Assembly being prorogued and the Administrator calling an extraordinary general election. Indeed, as Standing Order 95 so clearly states, it takes precedence over all other business. In the Westminster system it is usually dealt with immediately and no other business can be dealt with until it is resolved. This is the common practice and I read from the House of Representatives Practice which really endorses this. It says that any motion which expresses censure of or no confidence in the government and is accepted by a minister as a motion or amendment of censure or no confidence takes precedence of all other business until it is disposed of.
It has been common practice in Australia for the House, and indeed the Senate if we are talking federally, to be adjourned until the matters are dealt with and resolved.
That is the reason why I have moved this motion that this House should reconvene at 10 am on this Friday.
This is because there is uncertainty surrounding the future of this Assembly and the nature of any government that might be subsequently formed. Who can guarantee that legislation or other business that might come in the interim - and I know the opposition will be speaking against this motion because they believe, as I understand it from an earlier conversation I had today with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin, this Assembly should be sitting and doing business on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week. We do not take that position for the reasons I have just given. Who can guarantee such legislation or other business and its implementation in such circumstances? Furthermore, we believe that other business becomes almost academic and a distraction in such circumstances.
In the case of this Assembly, given the statutory processes defined within section 24 of the Northern Territory Electoral Act, there needs to be three clear days notice of such a motion given to the Assembly before it can be debated. The function of those three clear days is, if you like, a cooling-off period where people can think, where people can focus their attention on this one very serious motion that is before this House. That is why we want this parliament to adjourn this evening and then reconvene on Friday.
As I alluded to before, in these circumstances and, given the common precedent within the Westminster system, there is a strong case for there being no intervening business from when this House adjourns this evening until Friday when the motion is debated.
In my discussions with the Opposition Leader and the member for Port Darwin today, I know members on both sides are agreed on the gravity of this motion and the way in which this House has to conduct itself with dignity, seriousness and respect. I am very glad of the opportunity I had to talk with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin about this issue. I believe people of the Territory want this House to resolve these issues. They want us to do it in a sensible fashion and apply as much wisdom as we can.
Madam Speaker, I have also had a number of conversations with the member for Nelson. His view, which he has clearly articulated to me, is very similar to what I have alluded to here. I know the member for Nelson will speak on his behalf and his position will be known to this House. I say that the government respects and shares his view.
There will be those who argue that parliament is being shut down by this step. I disagree with that. Until this matter is resolved, certainty cannot prevail in this parliament. Between now and Friday, I believe Territorians will want us all focused on one goal: resolving the situation within this House.
In fact, by choosing to move a want of confidence motion today - and I understand why the Leader of the Opposition has done it, as he has the same interests at heart - the opposition members themselves have determined this outcome whereby it is not advisable or appropriate for this House to be sitting in the intervening time.
In summary, the government acknowledges the notice of want of confidence motion by the Opposition Leader. We share the view of the member for Nelson: that this motion has absolute precedence over all other business of this Assembly and that no other business should be dealt with in the intervening period. Indeed, this process, we believe, accords with Westminster tradition elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition believes that parliament should sit this week as scheduled. The work of the parliament should not be sacrificed for the Chief Minister’s desperate manoeuvres to cling to his job. Further, this week’s parliamentary sittings represent a golden opportunity to get to the bottom of the very issues that precipitated this crisis in the Henderson government.
The Chief Minister does not want parliament to sit because he knows facing sustained questioning will diminish his chances of clinging to the job. This is a difficult matter; however, we need to attend to the issue at hand and make use of the parliament to assess these matters properly, so that a proper decision can be made. Scrutiny is critical at a time like this.
The opposition supports this motion because the parliament and the people need to know why this administration has not delivered a single house under SIHIP in two years. Why? That is one of the primary reasons that has brought us to this position - some clarity, some explanation, some defence of the charge. The public has the right to know how much money has already been spent without a single house being built. We need to be able to weigh these things before decisions are made.
The public has the right to know how much this government is paying its own mates to do jobs they have no qualifications for, whilst women and children continue to live in the most squalid housing imaginable. The Chief Minister should tell this parliament where the houses funded by SIHIP will be built, how many houses will be built, and how much each house will cost. The Chief Minister cannot answer those questions; therefore, the unwillingness to front parliament.
The opposition supports this motion because these matters go to the heart of whether this Chief Minister is fit for the job. The very fact that the Chief Minister does not want to enter the parliament and state his case of why he should retain the job indicates something quite significant. If the Chief Minister had nothing to hide about the scandal of SIHIP, he would be the first person demanding that parliament does sit so that the case can be put. I predict the Chief Minister would come into the parliament with a hat full of dorothy dixers, as we have seen before, enabling him to explain what a great job his government has been doing in delivering housing in the bush. Even with all the free kicks the Chief Minister receives from his own backbenchers, he does not want to lay the defence of his government’s performance. In fact, this is an admission that the government’s performance is indefensible. The Chief Minister’s decision to avoid parliament confirms that there is a great deal to hide about his government’s handling of SIHIP.
Should parliament sit, the public would also get an opportunity to measure the loyalty of the Chief Minister’s faction-ridden government. The Chief Minister repeatedly makes the ludicrous claim that he can deliver stable government – from a Chief Minister who has had three ministers walk out of his dysfunctional government in just 18 months. He has lost more ministers in 18 months than Clare Martin lost in seven years.
We should remember that the first minister to quit the Henderson government was the widely respected Elliot McAdam. He quit in disgust because the Chief Minister turned tail in the face of a revolt on local government amalgamations. Limiting the political damage in the run-up to an early election was far more important to the Chief Minister than working through a difficult issue - much more important, sadly, than protecting the integrity of his minister. Elliot McAdam found the Labor Party under the Chief Minister so disturbing not only did he leave the ministry but he left the parliament. Men as honourable as Elliot McAdam do not walk out of governments unless there are deep divisions within that government.
Losing three ministers in 18 months is a sign of just how poisonous relations are within the Labor Party. Incredibly, one renegade minister has now been welcomed back into the fold. Taking back a member who has walked out of a party just to shore up the numbers highlights how desperate the Chief Minister is. The Labor Party prefers to hang, draw and quarter those who walk out of the party. We know the stories. There is an ugly name for it in the Labor system; they call them rats. Yet, the Chief Minister goes grovelling to the member for Arafura to get her to return. The same member also claimed that she could not trust her colleagues or the Chief Minister. The member for Arafura is right not to trust her colleagues, and that very fact raises many questions - questions we cannot attend to because parliament will not be sitting.
What deal has been struck with the member for Arafura and the Chief Minister to secure her support? That cannot be tested. Are homelands back in favour now? Will money now be diverted from the growth towns to the outstations? These are questions that cannot be scrutinised. Will bilingual education now continue? It is something we cannot assess or test because parliament will not be sitting.
One thing the public can be sure of is, sadly, that this deal has been driven by politics and not policy. Labor has long abandoned the idea of making policy decisions the basis of governing. Politics has governed the way decisions are made. Politics is what drives this arrogant, desperate and out of touch administration. There is no doubt the Labor government’s obsession with politics makes it inherently unstable. Let us not forget the member for Arafura has, effectively, left the Labor Party twice in three days. Nor should we forget that what prompted her to leave was a series of vicious, personal leaks that had the Chief Minister’s fingerprints all over them.
The former Labor member for Port Darwin, Kerry Sacilotto, has also given the public a view inside the putrid world of the Henderson government. She, too, has resigned from the party she once loyally served. She has described this government as an embarrassment, a disgrace and a captive to political advisors. She has also warned about the unrestrained ambitions of the deputy leader of the Labor government. There the member for Karama sits sharpening her knife on her overweening ambition. She will pledge her loyalty to the leader right up to the moment there is a strike. There is no more destabilising a situation than a deputy leader waiting for the right moment to pounce.
This brings me to the third minister who has walked out on this government in disintegration. The member for Macdonnell became the third minister to walk out on this crumbling government after receiving a briefing indicating that 70% of money from SIHIP would be chewed up in indirect costs. The Chief Minister was initially unconcerned that his Indigenous affairs minister had been told this staggering figure. Once he realised that her disgust at this situation was such that she would leave the government, the Chief Minister rushed around claiming that she had been given the wrong information.
The Chief Minister expects us to believe his handpicked $300 000-a-year consultant has given the minister the wrong figure. Indeed, the Chief Minister claims administrative costs for SIHIP are just 11%. We cannot test that – parliament will not be sitting.
The Chief Minister will not come into parliament and defend these claims or refute those made by the member for Macdonnell. He refuses to answer the very most basic questions about SIHIP and he believes – hopes against hope - that he can minimise the political damage if he does not have to face parliamentary questions.
Parliament needs to sit this week so these and other critical issues can be thoroughly examined: the breakdown of law and order, the spiralling cost of electricity, the parliamentary deceit over Bellamack Gardens, the ever-increasing costs of housing in Darwin and Alice Springs, the huge waiting times in emergency departments, and the dismal education outcomes. This Chief Minister does not want to face parliamentary scrutiny over this litany of failures.
Madam Speaker, closing down parliament is an act of political cowardice, right at the very moment when a case needs to be defended, and when the Northern Territory needs leadership.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague’s motion. I will go through the reasons why again, but I am not going to be drawn into the bitter personal jibes and attacks from the Leader of the Opposition. Now is not the time to have that debate. I am sure, when we are here on Friday debating the motion of no confidence, the issues that have led to what has happened over the last week or so in Territory politics will be fully canvassed by this House. All of the issues raised by members opposite and Independents will be responded to in full.
What we have here today is an extraordinary motion - an extraordinary motion during a very difficult time in Northern Territory politics. There are standard conventions under the Westminster system that are also reflected in our Electoral Act in the Northern Territory, and in our standing orders, that actually give capacity for this extraordinary motion of no confidence to be considered by this parliament.
It goes to issues of the dignity of this House. This is a motion that all Territorians will be looking at, and we are probably going to have record numbers of people tuned in over the Internet listening to the debate on Friday when all of these issues will be canvassed.
The Westminster convention of hundreds of years of Westminster democracy is reflected in legislation around the world, and in our own Electoral Act, where it is very clear that a motion of no confidence in the government is passed by the Legislative Assembly, being a motion of which not less than three clear days notice has been given in the Assembly. Our act says ‘three clear days notice’.
Madam Speaker, members opposite and the Independents wrote to you to try to get this issue resolved this week. I agree; we need to resolve this motion this week. We have an extra sitting day today to put this motion, and for the motion to be debated on Friday, as quickly as possible. Under our standing orders, which have been adopted unanimously by this House, there is no debate; there has never been any debate in this House. In my time – and I have been on the Standing Orders Committee for many years – the standing orders very clearly state that a motion of want of confidence in the government or a minister shall take precedence over all other business. There is good reason for that. Our Electoral Act says there needs to be three clear days. There is good reason for that. Any debate in this House, any legislation that would be up for debate, would have absolutely no legitimacy whilst this question is unresolved.
The place and the time to resolve this question is determined under our Electoral Act which says there needs to be three clear days notice. Our standing orders say very clearly this shall take precedence.
To the charge of the Leader of the Opposition that, somehow as Chief Minister, I and my government want to duck questioning and accountability - I absolutely refute it. We will have a long, drawn-out debate on Friday when all these issues will be canvassed. I anticipate that each and every one of the 25 members of this House will have their say on this particular motion and all of the issues.
I give a commitment to this House and Territorians: all of the issues that have led us to be where we are today I will fully, openly and transparently put the government’s side of the story. There is a significant and profound other side of the story to be put to the assertions and allegations that have been made that have led us to where we are today. We will put that side of the story with dignity, with clarity, and with integrity at the right and appropriate place and time, which will be next Friday when this is brought on.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the opposition is very clear in their understanding of the gravity and import of the motion that they and the Independents have brought to the House. They are very much aware; they understand the conventions, and they understand the act. They understand our standing orders. They certainly fully understood that in the event that Madam Speaker accepted this request for an additional sitting day today, Monday, and an additional sitting day on Friday, and given that our act says three clear days notice needs to be given, and our standing orders say that this shall take precedence over all other business - and there are very sound reasons in the Westminster parliamentary convention and tradition which requires the motion be given full and every consideration, and as the Leader of Government Business said, for the people of the Northern Territory there could be profound consequences as to the results of the debate next week. We need to have that debate in absolute clarity and with dignity around the issues as opposed to three days of circus in here and point scoring which will be rehashed in the debate on Friday.
For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and say that this is a government that is running from scrutiny, I totally refute. He full well understood that by proposing this course of action that he has, it would require the Assembly not meet for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to give effect to our Electoral Act, to reflect the requirements in standing orders, and allow all members of this House who will participate in that debate on Friday to fully comprehend the enormity of that debate and the potential consequences of the way people vote.
I stand here proudly as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and of our government to say that all the claims, all the questions, will be debated here in full, in the right place, in the right time, under the right parliamentary orders on Friday. We are not ducking anything. We will be coming here, very clearly, with our version of what has transpired over the last week, and putting to bed some of the inaccuracies that have been portrayed and many of the other issues that have been canvassed.
I am not going to be drawn into a bitter, personal debate here this evening. I believe Territorians deserve better. I believe Territorians deserve to have this debate in the public domain on Friday when all of those issues will be canvassed.
I say again: this motion of no confidence that we have accepted as a government should take precedence over all other business. Quite rightly; quite appropriately. Any other debate, whether it be on legislation, on motions, or questions to the executive government, would have absolutely no legitimacy until this question is resolved.
Madam Speaker, the time and the place to do that is on Friday, as the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the opposition well know.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do not propose to repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said. In fact, I would like to add another argument in support of why the parliament should sit.
I am hopeful that all members of this Chamber and, indeed, all other people in the Territory, will appreciate why it is that I am against this motion. I am aghast that an item of government business that has been, or should have been, pressing for months is not going to see the light of day this week. I still do not know whether it is going to see the light of day next week. I will come back to that.
I speak of the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. I said, on 11 June in this Chamber, that I was utterly stunned that the issue of the unintended consequence of changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act was not addressed by this government then. Indeed, I wrote to the relevant minister late in May suggesting ways the problem could be fixed, and I heard nothing for some time. I have had discussions with the minister, and with her staff. On Friday afternoon, I received a draft bill. I still do not know whether it is the intention of government to introduce the bill on urgency next week. The unintended consequence of the Care and Protection of Children Act impacts very significantly on the health of young people in the Northern Territory.
I heard the Leader of Government Business say – and if my note is accurate I got it word for word - ‘other business becomes academic and almost a distraction’. The Chief Minister referred to a ‘circus’ that might occur in the parliament this week. The Leader of Government Business referred to ‘common precedent’ in support of his argument that the parliament adjourn. I believe the Leader of Government Business was somewhat selective in his quoting because, in the Fifth Edition of House of Representatives Practice at page 317, it says:
I assume that I am one of 25 members of parliament who has received ample correspondence from those in the medical and other related professions about the impact of the unintended consequence of the Care and Protection of Children Act on young people in the Territory.
I received a letter dated 7 August from the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting pleading with us all to resolve this matter as soon as possible. There is bipartisan support. I advised the minister’s office on Friday because I had not received a copy of their long-awaited bill at the time of my briefing. I said: ‘If you do not do this, we will. We have our bill ready to go. I still do not have an answer as to whether it will be dealt with on urgency’.
In light of the health implications that this failure to amend the act has on the young people of the Northern Territory who are under 16 and sexually active, I am aghast and it beggars belief that a government whose members refer to the possibility of the parliament being a ‘circus’ and all other business being ‘academic and almost a distraction’, that this government is not able to bring itself to have it dealt with tomorrow morning, to debate it next week, or to give notice of it this week and have it debated next week.
There is common ground between us all. The act needed to be fixed. Both parties have bills hot off the press ready to go and, yet, I have to report - and I will report - to the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting, that the Labor government did not want to come back; did not want to get this piece of business dealt with. Shame on you.
I quote from this letter from NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting the following:
I received a letter this morning from the Law Society. Most members will know that the Law Society has teamed up with a number of organisations, one of which includes the Really Caring for Kids Coalition. The letter this morning says:
I am still stunned. I was stunned on 11 June. I have been stunned by the government’s inaction. I am still stunned that the government does not want to deal with this issue. Putting aside all of the politics, you would have thought that we as parliamentarians would be able to get this right, would be able to come into parliament and have this matter dealt with. I believe Territorians expect us to deal with this matter. I and many other people would have preferred for this matter to be dealt with some months ago. We have an opportunity and yet members on that side are saying: ‘Oh no, it is all too hard; it is a distraction, it is academic’. Well, it is not academic at all. It is very real. It is with great sadness that I will report to the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting, the Law Society, the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, and others, that the government has seen fit to bunker down and not deal with this very important matter.
Madam Speaker, I thought that in all of the circumstances I would add that to the debate. I hope that it weighs heavily on the conscience of those opposite. It certainly weighs heavily on mine. I implore members opposite to reconsider their position and let us come back in the morning so that this bill can be dealt with.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for very long on this issue. I support this motion. I believe we are at a very serious crossroad. Whether I like it or not, I happen to be in the position of deciding the fate of one side or the other in this particular debate. I believe we need time to focus on that important issue.
That is not to denigrate any other legislation that has come before this parliament. Depending on the outcome, of course, it could be that we do not sit, or depending on the outcome we will be here next week. I am not here to make comment on those particular issues.
I also feel that if I was debating legislation in the next three days I would not be able to give it the full concentration required. There is some important legislation before this House and I do not think I could give that legislation the considered reasoning required for me to debate those issues.
I have many, many issues to consider. People might say that is a fairly selfish point of view. People on the other side of this House, and this side, may not have to have that great concern. The fact is that I have to weigh up what is an extremely difficult issue for me. I will certainly need the following three days to make sure that whatever decision I make here I do so for the betterment of the Northern Territory. In that area I will not be selfish. I believe I have to act on behalf of all of us who are part of this parliament which has responsibility to work to the betterment of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion. I believe it is appropriate, because of the seriousness of this debate, that we adjourn the House until Friday.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contribution to this very important debate. I do not have much more to add to what has been said, except I might have misheard the Leader of the Opposition saying that he supported the motion. I believe he was actually saying he did not support the motion. That was plain from what he said.
The Chief Minister made it very plain that, on Friday, there will be ample opportunity for people to raise the issues that are very important to them. I believe every member of this House will do so with passion and conviction and, as the member for Nelson said, with the best interests of the Northern Territory at heart. That is very important. The Chief Minister repeated what I had alluded to earlier; these motions have precedence over everything and there is a reason why we have the three days as a cooling off period.
I take what the member for Araluen said about the care and protection of children. I know of her passion on this particular issue. I place on the record, member for Araluen, that I certainly was not alluding – I might have been taken a little out of context – to the fact that that particular bill is academic. What I was saying in the text of my speech – and Hansard will bear me out – is, given the fact that there is so much uncertainty in this parliament, it is not appropriate for us to be debating such motions.
I give an assurance from government that, should we be the government next week, we will certainly move this through on urgency. You have given the assurance that should the CLP be the government of the day next week, you will move that on urgency. There will be support from this side of the House. I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, and she understands why there has to be a suspension of business before this parliament. I give the House the assurance that it is an important issue. We need to pass it on urgency as soon as we are in a position to do so. There is agreement around this House on that particular issue.
Member for Nelson, you have a very difficult decision to make. There are many people praying for you - even some of those who do not go to church regularly. We pray for wisdom and grace. You are going to have to make a hard decision. I am not trying to make light of this but I know you are an umpire for footy, and we all have to recognise that the umpires, sometimes, make hard decisions that might not go your way. Sometimes, when I am watching the footy, I feel that the umpire might have made the wrong decision. From my perspective, member for Nelson, you may make a decision that goes against this government, or whatever. That is your decision and I will respect that. Why will I respect it? Because I know you are giving this your full attention. I know you are agonising over this decision and you want to do the right thing for the Territory. I know that every member in this Assembly feels the same way.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Reasons for Calling the Assembly to Meet this Day - Notice of Motion of No Confidence
in the Government
Reasons for Calling the Assembly to Meet this Day - Notice of Motion of No Confidence
in the Government
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I received the following letter, dated 6 August 2009, from the Leader of the Opposition in my office at 12.15 pm on Friday, 7 August. The letter reads as follows:
- Dear Madam Speaker,
The following signatories, representing the majority of MLAs, call on you to recall parliament for two additional sitting days for the purpose of dealing with the business of a want of confidence motion in the Chief Minister and his government.
The signatories request an additional sitting day on Monday, 10 August, at 4 pm for the specific purpose of giving the Assembly notice of a motion expressing that the government no longer possesses the confidence of the Assembly. The signatories will seek to adjourn parliament following the giving of this notice.
Further, in accordance with the requirements of at least three clear days notice, the below signatories seek that the second additional sitting day be 10 am, Friday, 14 August, to specifically move debate and finalise that motion referred to above and any other associated matters.
The letter has been signed by Mr Mills, Ms Purick, Ms Carney, Ms Anderson, Mr Bohlin, Mr Chandler, Mr Conlan, Mr Elferink, Mr Giles, Mr Styles, Mr Tollner, Mr Westra van Holthe and Mr Wood.
It is my opinion that this serious matter was sufficient to exercise my powers pursuant to sessional order of the Assembly dated 9 September 2008 to accede to the request.
For the Parliamentary Record, I read my response to the Leader of the Opposition. I will be tabling both these documents:
- Dear Mr Mills,
I refer to your letter dated 6 August 2009 in which you request that I exercise my powers pursuant to sessional order of the Assembly dated 9 September 2008 to appoint 4 pm on Monday, 10 August 2009, as the time and day for the holding of the next sitting of the Assembly with the specific purpose of giving notice of a want of confidence motion in the Chief Minister and his government, and then to adjourn the parliament upon giving of the notice. This is approved.
You also request that Friday, 14 August 2009, be a sitting day to specifically move the want of confidence motion until it is resolved. This is approved and the Assembly will sit at 10 am on Friday, 14 August 2009.
I will now advise all members of my decision.
Yours sincerely
Jane Aagaard
7 August 2009
Honourable members, I table those letters.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Arrangements
Media Arrangements
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have given permission for ABC TV, Channel 9 and the NT News to film and photograph the notice of motion.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Motion of No Confidence
Motion of No Confidence
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on Friday, 14 August 2009, I shall move –
- That the Assembly, pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, express ‘that the government no longer possesses the confidence of the Assembly’.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion relating to priority being given to my notice given earlier this day.
Mr Henderson: Priority of what motion?
Mr MILLS: The notice of the motion I just presented.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, can you just – you were given permission to give notice of a motion of no confidence.
Mr MILLS: Correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is up to the Leader of Government Business. Precedence is a government matter. I call the Leader of Government Business.
PRECEDENCE TO NOTICE OF MOTION EXPRESSING NO CONFIDENCE
IN THE GOVERNMENT
IN THE GOVERNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the notice given by the Leader of the Opposition as a want of confidence motion. Indeed, this motion is the most serious motion that can come before this Assembly.
In this context also, Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 95, this item should have precedence over all other business as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. It is helpful for the House if I read Standing Order 95:
- PRECEDENCE TO CENSURE OR WANT OF CONFIDENCE
A notice of which notice has been given or an amendment which expresses a censure of or want of confidence in the government, if accepted by a Minister as a censure or want of confidence motion or amendment, shall be moved forthwith and until it is disposed of by the Assembly, shall take precedence of all other business.
MOTION
Nomination of Next Sitting Day
Nomination of Next Sitting Day
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, in this context and accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and subject to section 24 of the Northern Territory Electoral Act, I move the following motion:
- That the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Friday, 14 August, at 10 am.
Madam Speaker, I am obviously moving a motion and members of the opposition will be responding to my motion. I will begin speaking to that motion I have moved.
I will preface my speech on the matter of adjourning this House until Friday to resolve this issue by saying that I believe the majority of Territorians want this matter resolved by this House and they want a resolution to occur as quickly as possible.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister have both said that an extraordinary general election is the last option. I also believe that Territorians expect us to bring wisdom, respect and integrity to this very serious debate, and for all of us to keep the best interests of the Territory as our top priority.
According to Westminster tradition, a motion of want of confidence in the government is the most serious of motions that can be dealt with by any legislature. If such a motion is sustained it has profound consequences which can lead to this Assembly being prorogued and the Administrator calling an extraordinary general election. Indeed, as Standing Order 95 so clearly states, it takes precedence over all other business. In the Westminster system it is usually dealt with immediately and no other business can be dealt with until it is resolved. This is the common practice and I read from the House of Representatives Practice which really endorses this. It says that any motion which expresses censure of or no confidence in the government and is accepted by a minister as a motion or amendment of censure or no confidence takes precedence of all other business until it is disposed of.
It has been common practice in Australia for the House, and indeed the Senate if we are talking federally, to be adjourned until the matters are dealt with and resolved.
That is the reason why I have moved this motion that this House should reconvene at 10 am on this Friday.
This is because there is uncertainty surrounding the future of this Assembly and the nature of any government that might be subsequently formed. Who can guarantee that legislation or other business that might come in the interim - and I know the opposition will be speaking against this motion because they believe, as I understand it from an earlier conversation I had today with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin, this Assembly should be sitting and doing business on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week. We do not take that position for the reasons I have just given. Who can guarantee such legislation or other business and its implementation in such circumstances? Furthermore, we believe that other business becomes almost academic and a distraction in such circumstances.
In the case of this Assembly, given the statutory processes defined within section 24 of the Northern Territory Electoral Act, there needs to be three clear days notice of such a motion given to the Assembly before it can be debated. The function of those three clear days is, if you like, a cooling-off period where people can think, where people can focus their attention on this one very serious motion that is before this House. That is why we want this parliament to adjourn this evening and then reconvene on Friday.
As I alluded to before, in these circumstances and, given the common precedent within the Westminster system, there is a strong case for there being no intervening business from when this House adjourns this evening until Friday when the motion is debated.
In my discussions with the Opposition Leader and the member for Port Darwin today, I know members on both sides are agreed on the gravity of this motion and the way in which this House has to conduct itself with dignity, seriousness and respect. I am very glad of the opportunity I had to talk with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Darwin about this issue. I believe people of the Territory want this House to resolve these issues. They want us to do it in a sensible fashion and apply as much wisdom as we can.
Madam Speaker, I have also had a number of conversations with the member for Nelson. His view, which he has clearly articulated to me, is very similar to what I have alluded to here. I know the member for Nelson will speak on his behalf and his position will be known to this House. I say that the government respects and shares his view.
There will be those who argue that parliament is being shut down by this step. I disagree with that. Until this matter is resolved, certainty cannot prevail in this parliament. Between now and Friday, I believe Territorians will want us all focused on one goal: resolving the situation within this House.
In fact, by choosing to move a want of confidence motion today - and I understand why the Leader of the Opposition has done it, as he has the same interests at heart - the opposition members themselves have determined this outcome whereby it is not advisable or appropriate for this House to be sitting in the intervening time.
In summary, the government acknowledges the notice of want of confidence motion by the Opposition Leader. We share the view of the member for Nelson: that this motion has absolute precedence over all other business of this Assembly and that no other business should be dealt with in the intervening period. Indeed, this process, we believe, accords with Westminster tradition elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition believes that parliament should sit this week as scheduled. The work of the parliament should not be sacrificed for the Chief Minister’s desperate manoeuvres to cling to his job. Further, this week’s parliamentary sittings represent a golden opportunity to get to the bottom of the very issues that precipitated this crisis in the Henderson government.
The Chief Minister does not want parliament to sit because he knows facing sustained questioning will diminish his chances of clinging to the job. This is a difficult matter; however, we need to attend to the issue at hand and make use of the parliament to assess these matters properly, so that a proper decision can be made. Scrutiny is critical at a time like this.
The opposition supports this motion because the parliament and the people need to know why this administration has not delivered a single house under SIHIP in two years. Why? That is one of the primary reasons that has brought us to this position - some clarity, some explanation, some defence of the charge. The public has the right to know how much money has already been spent without a single house being built. We need to be able to weigh these things before decisions are made.
The public has the right to know how much this government is paying its own mates to do jobs they have no qualifications for, whilst women and children continue to live in the most squalid housing imaginable. The Chief Minister should tell this parliament where the houses funded by SIHIP will be built, how many houses will be built, and how much each house will cost. The Chief Minister cannot answer those questions; therefore, the unwillingness to front parliament.
The opposition supports this motion because these matters go to the heart of whether this Chief Minister is fit for the job. The very fact that the Chief Minister does not want to enter the parliament and state his case of why he should retain the job indicates something quite significant. If the Chief Minister had nothing to hide about the scandal of SIHIP, he would be the first person demanding that parliament does sit so that the case can be put. I predict the Chief Minister would come into the parliament with a hat full of dorothy dixers, as we have seen before, enabling him to explain what a great job his government has been doing in delivering housing in the bush. Even with all the free kicks the Chief Minister receives from his own backbenchers, he does not want to lay the defence of his government’s performance. In fact, this is an admission that the government’s performance is indefensible. The Chief Minister’s decision to avoid parliament confirms that there is a great deal to hide about his government’s handling of SIHIP.
Should parliament sit, the public would also get an opportunity to measure the loyalty of the Chief Minister’s faction-ridden government. The Chief Minister repeatedly makes the ludicrous claim that he can deliver stable government – from a Chief Minister who has had three ministers walk out of his dysfunctional government in just 18 months. He has lost more ministers in 18 months than Clare Martin lost in seven years.
We should remember that the first minister to quit the Henderson government was the widely respected Elliot McAdam. He quit in disgust because the Chief Minister turned tail in the face of a revolt on local government amalgamations. Limiting the political damage in the run-up to an early election was far more important to the Chief Minister than working through a difficult issue - much more important, sadly, than protecting the integrity of his minister. Elliot McAdam found the Labor Party under the Chief Minister so disturbing not only did he leave the ministry but he left the parliament. Men as honourable as Elliot McAdam do not walk out of governments unless there are deep divisions within that government.
Losing three ministers in 18 months is a sign of just how poisonous relations are within the Labor Party. Incredibly, one renegade minister has now been welcomed back into the fold. Taking back a member who has walked out of a party just to shore up the numbers highlights how desperate the Chief Minister is. The Labor Party prefers to hang, draw and quarter those who walk out of the party. We know the stories. There is an ugly name for it in the Labor system; they call them rats. Yet, the Chief Minister goes grovelling to the member for Arafura to get her to return. The same member also claimed that she could not trust her colleagues or the Chief Minister. The member for Arafura is right not to trust her colleagues, and that very fact raises many questions - questions we cannot attend to because parliament will not be sitting.
What deal has been struck with the member for Arafura and the Chief Minister to secure her support? That cannot be tested. Are homelands back in favour now? Will money now be diverted from the growth towns to the outstations? These are questions that cannot be scrutinised. Will bilingual education now continue? It is something we cannot assess or test because parliament will not be sitting.
One thing the public can be sure of is, sadly, that this deal has been driven by politics and not policy. Labor has long abandoned the idea of making policy decisions the basis of governing. Politics has governed the way decisions are made. Politics is what drives this arrogant, desperate and out of touch administration. There is no doubt the Labor government’s obsession with politics makes it inherently unstable. Let us not forget the member for Arafura has, effectively, left the Labor Party twice in three days. Nor should we forget that what prompted her to leave was a series of vicious, personal leaks that had the Chief Minister’s fingerprints all over them.
The former Labor member for Port Darwin, Kerry Sacilotto, has also given the public a view inside the putrid world of the Henderson government. She, too, has resigned from the party she once loyally served. She has described this government as an embarrassment, a disgrace and a captive to political advisors. She has also warned about the unrestrained ambitions of the deputy leader of the Labor government. There the member for Karama sits sharpening her knife on her overweening ambition. She will pledge her loyalty to the leader right up to the moment there is a strike. There is no more destabilising a situation than a deputy leader waiting for the right moment to pounce.
This brings me to the third minister who has walked out on this government in disintegration. The member for Macdonnell became the third minister to walk out on this crumbling government after receiving a briefing indicating that 70% of money from SIHIP would be chewed up in indirect costs. The Chief Minister was initially unconcerned that his Indigenous affairs minister had been told this staggering figure. Once he realised that her disgust at this situation was such that she would leave the government, the Chief Minister rushed around claiming that she had been given the wrong information.
The Chief Minister expects us to believe his handpicked $300 000-a-year consultant has given the minister the wrong figure. Indeed, the Chief Minister claims administrative costs for SIHIP are just 11%. We cannot test that – parliament will not be sitting.
The Chief Minister will not come into parliament and defend these claims or refute those made by the member for Macdonnell. He refuses to answer the very most basic questions about SIHIP and he believes – hopes against hope - that he can minimise the political damage if he does not have to face parliamentary questions.
Parliament needs to sit this week so these and other critical issues can be thoroughly examined: the breakdown of law and order, the spiralling cost of electricity, the parliamentary deceit over Bellamack Gardens, the ever-increasing costs of housing in Darwin and Alice Springs, the huge waiting times in emergency departments, and the dismal education outcomes. This Chief Minister does not want to face parliamentary scrutiny over this litany of failures.
Madam Speaker, closing down parliament is an act of political cowardice, right at the very moment when a case needs to be defended, and when the Northern Territory needs leadership.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague’s motion. I will go through the reasons why again, but I am not going to be drawn into the bitter personal jibes and attacks from the Leader of the Opposition. Now is not the time to have that debate. I am sure, when we are here on Friday debating the motion of no confidence, the issues that have led to what has happened over the last week or so in Territory politics will be fully canvassed by this House. All of the issues raised by members opposite and Independents will be responded to in full.
What we have here today is an extraordinary motion - an extraordinary motion during a very difficult time in Northern Territory politics. There are standard conventions under the Westminster system that are also reflected in our Electoral Act in the Northern Territory, and in our standing orders, that actually give capacity for this extraordinary motion of no confidence to be considered by this parliament.
It goes to issues of the dignity of this House. This is a motion that all Territorians will be looking at, and we are probably going to have record numbers of people tuned in over the Internet listening to the debate on Friday when all of these issues will be canvassed.
The Westminster convention of hundreds of years of Westminster democracy is reflected in legislation around the world, and in our own Electoral Act, where it is very clear that a motion of no confidence in the government is passed by the Legislative Assembly, being a motion of which not less than three clear days notice has been given in the Assembly. Our act says ‘three clear days notice’.
Madam Speaker, members opposite and the Independents wrote to you to try to get this issue resolved this week. I agree; we need to resolve this motion this week. We have an extra sitting day today to put this motion, and for the motion to be debated on Friday, as quickly as possible. Under our standing orders, which have been adopted unanimously by this House, there is no debate; there has never been any debate in this House. In my time – and I have been on the Standing Orders Committee for many years – the standing orders very clearly state that a motion of want of confidence in the government or a minister shall take precedence over all other business. There is good reason for that. Our Electoral Act says there needs to be three clear days. There is good reason for that. Any debate in this House, any legislation that would be up for debate, would have absolutely no legitimacy whilst this question is unresolved.
The place and the time to resolve this question is determined under our Electoral Act which says there needs to be three clear days notice. Our standing orders say very clearly this shall take precedence.
To the charge of the Leader of the Opposition that, somehow as Chief Minister, I and my government want to duck questioning and accountability - I absolutely refute it. We will have a long, drawn-out debate on Friday when all these issues will be canvassed. I anticipate that each and every one of the 25 members of this House will have their say on this particular motion and all of the issues.
I give a commitment to this House and Territorians: all of the issues that have led us to be where we are today I will fully, openly and transparently put the government’s side of the story. There is a significant and profound other side of the story to be put to the assertions and allegations that have been made that have led us to where we are today. We will put that side of the story with dignity, with clarity, and with integrity at the right and appropriate place and time, which will be next Friday when this is brought on.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the opposition is very clear in their understanding of the gravity and import of the motion that they and the Independents have brought to the House. They are very much aware; they understand the conventions, and they understand the act. They understand our standing orders. They certainly fully understood that in the event that Madam Speaker accepted this request for an additional sitting day today, Monday, and an additional sitting day on Friday, and given that our act says three clear days notice needs to be given, and our standing orders say that this shall take precedence over all other business - and there are very sound reasons in the Westminster parliamentary convention and tradition which requires the motion be given full and every consideration, and as the Leader of Government Business said, for the people of the Northern Territory there could be profound consequences as to the results of the debate next week. We need to have that debate in absolute clarity and with dignity around the issues as opposed to three days of circus in here and point scoring which will be rehashed in the debate on Friday.
For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and say that this is a government that is running from scrutiny, I totally refute. He full well understood that by proposing this course of action that he has, it would require the Assembly not meet for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to give effect to our Electoral Act, to reflect the requirements in standing orders, and allow all members of this House who will participate in that debate on Friday to fully comprehend the enormity of that debate and the potential consequences of the way people vote.
I stand here proudly as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and of our government to say that all the claims, all the questions, will be debated here in full, in the right place, in the right time, under the right parliamentary orders on Friday. We are not ducking anything. We will be coming here, very clearly, with our version of what has transpired over the last week, and putting to bed some of the inaccuracies that have been portrayed and many of the other issues that have been canvassed.
I am not going to be drawn into a bitter, personal debate here this evening. I believe Territorians deserve better. I believe Territorians deserve to have this debate in the public domain on Friday when all of those issues will be canvassed.
I say again: this motion of no confidence that we have accepted as a government should take precedence over all other business. Quite rightly; quite appropriately. Any other debate, whether it be on legislation, on motions, or questions to the executive government, would have absolutely no legitimacy until this question is resolved.
Madam Speaker, the time and the place to do that is on Friday, as the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the opposition well know.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I do not propose to repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said. In fact, I would like to add another argument in support of why the parliament should sit.
I am hopeful that all members of this Chamber and, indeed, all other people in the Territory, will appreciate why it is that I am against this motion. I am aghast that an item of government business that has been, or should have been, pressing for months is not going to see the light of day this week. I still do not know whether it is going to see the light of day next week. I will come back to that.
I speak of the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. I said, on 11 June in this Chamber, that I was utterly stunned that the issue of the unintended consequence of changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act was not addressed by this government then. Indeed, I wrote to the relevant minister late in May suggesting ways the problem could be fixed, and I heard nothing for some time. I have had discussions with the minister, and with her staff. On Friday afternoon, I received a draft bill. I still do not know whether it is the intention of government to introduce the bill on urgency next week. The unintended consequence of the Care and Protection of Children Act impacts very significantly on the health of young people in the Northern Territory.
I heard the Leader of Government Business say – and if my note is accurate I got it word for word - ‘other business becomes academic and almost a distraction’. The Chief Minister referred to a ‘circus’ that might occur in the parliament this week. The Leader of Government Business referred to ‘common precedent’ in support of his argument that the parliament adjourn. I believe the Leader of Government Business was somewhat selective in his quoting because, in the Fifth Edition of House of Representatives Practice at page 317, it says:
- In the modern House, pressure of business is such as to preclude an adjournment.
I assume that I am one of 25 members of parliament who has received ample correspondence from those in the medical and other related professions about the impact of the unintended consequence of the Care and Protection of Children Act on young people in the Territory.
I received a letter dated 7 August from the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting pleading with us all to resolve this matter as soon as possible. There is bipartisan support. I advised the minister’s office on Friday because I had not received a copy of their long-awaited bill at the time of my briefing. I said: ‘If you do not do this, we will. We have our bill ready to go. I still do not have an answer as to whether it will be dealt with on urgency’.
In light of the health implications that this failure to amend the act has on the young people of the Northern Territory who are under 16 and sexually active, I am aghast and it beggars belief that a government whose members refer to the possibility of the parliament being a ‘circus’ and all other business being ‘academic and almost a distraction’, that this government is not able to bring itself to have it dealt with tomorrow morning, to debate it next week, or to give notice of it this week and have it debated next week.
There is common ground between us all. The act needed to be fixed. Both parties have bills hot off the press ready to go and, yet, I have to report - and I will report - to the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting, that the Labor government did not want to come back; did not want to get this piece of business dealt with. Shame on you.
I quote from this letter from NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting the following:
- The result is that now there are young women in the Territory who are pregnant and too frightened to get medical help. The possible consequences of this are too terrible to contemplate.
I received a letter this morning from the Law Society. Most members will know that the Law Society has teamed up with a number of organisations, one of which includes the Really Caring for Kids Coalition. The letter this morning says:
- The coalition feels that it is important that the changes are made at the first opportunity. Members are concerned that the current political situation could lead to a postponement of the passage of an amending bill. We would like to see the amendments proceed to enactment as soon as possible to avoid further unintended harm.
I am still stunned. I was stunned on 11 June. I have been stunned by the government’s inaction. I am still stunned that the government does not want to deal with this issue. Putting aside all of the politics, you would have thought that we as parliamentarians would be able to get this right, would be able to come into parliament and have this matter dealt with. I believe Territorians expect us to deal with this matter. I and many other people would have preferred for this matter to be dealt with some months ago. We have an opportunity and yet members on that side are saying: ‘Oh no, it is all too hard; it is a distraction, it is academic’. Well, it is not academic at all. It is very real. It is with great sadness that I will report to the NT Mothers and Others against Mandatory Reporting, the Law Society, the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, and others, that the government has seen fit to bunker down and not deal with this very important matter.
Madam Speaker, I thought that in all of the circumstances I would add that to the debate. I hope that it weighs heavily on the conscience of those opposite. It certainly weighs heavily on mine. I implore members opposite to reconsider their position and let us come back in the morning so that this bill can be dealt with.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not speak for very long on this issue. I support this motion. I believe we are at a very serious crossroad. Whether I like it or not, I happen to be in the position of deciding the fate of one side or the other in this particular debate. I believe we need time to focus on that important issue.
That is not to denigrate any other legislation that has come before this parliament. Depending on the outcome, of course, it could be that we do not sit, or depending on the outcome we will be here next week. I am not here to make comment on those particular issues.
I also feel that if I was debating legislation in the next three days I would not be able to give it the full concentration required. There is some important legislation before this House and I do not think I could give that legislation the considered reasoning required for me to debate those issues.
I have many, many issues to consider. People might say that is a fairly selfish point of view. People on the other side of this House, and this side, may not have to have that great concern. The fact is that I have to weigh up what is an extremely difficult issue for me. I will certainly need the following three days to make sure that whatever decision I make here I do so for the betterment of the Northern Territory. In that area I will not be selfish. I believe I have to act on behalf of all of us who are part of this parliament which has responsibility to work to the betterment of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion. I believe it is appropriate, because of the seriousness of this debate, that we adjourn the House until Friday.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contribution to this very important debate. I do not have much more to add to what has been said, except I might have misheard the Leader of the Opposition saying that he supported the motion. I believe he was actually saying he did not support the motion. That was plain from what he said.
The Chief Minister made it very plain that, on Friday, there will be ample opportunity for people to raise the issues that are very important to them. I believe every member of this House will do so with passion and conviction and, as the member for Nelson said, with the best interests of the Northern Territory at heart. That is very important. The Chief Minister repeated what I had alluded to earlier; these motions have precedence over everything and there is a reason why we have the three days as a cooling off period.
I take what the member for Araluen said about the care and protection of children. I know of her passion on this particular issue. I place on the record, member for Araluen, that I certainly was not alluding – I might have been taken a little out of context – to the fact that that particular bill is academic. What I was saying in the text of my speech – and Hansard will bear me out – is, given the fact that there is so much uncertainty in this parliament, it is not appropriate for us to be debating such motions.
I give an assurance from government that, should we be the government next week, we will certainly move this through on urgency. You have given the assurance that should the CLP be the government of the day next week, you will move that on urgency. There will be support from this side of the House. I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member for Arnhem, and she understands why there has to be a suspension of business before this parliament. I give the House the assurance that it is an important issue. We need to pass it on urgency as soon as we are in a position to do so. There is agreement around this House on that particular issue.
Member for Nelson, you have a very difficult decision to make. There are many people praying for you - even some of those who do not go to church regularly. We pray for wisdom and grace. You are going to have to make a hard decision. I am not trying to make light of this but I know you are an umpire for footy, and we all have to recognise that the umpires, sometimes, make hard decisions that might not go your way. Sometimes, when I am watching the footy, I feel that the umpire might have made the wrong decision. From my perspective, member for Nelson, you may make a decision that goes against this government, or whatever. That is your decision and I will respect that. Why will I respect it? Because I know you are giving this your full attention. I know you are agonising over this decision and you want to do the right thing for the Territory. I know that every member in this Assembly feels the same way.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016