Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 17 May 1995



Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 17 May 1995

Other title

Parliamentary Record 10


Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 17 May 1995 and the committee wrote to him asking him for copies of the report on the basis of which he had made his decision, he was very cute indeed. Unbeknownst to me at the time I wrote the letter, and unbeknownst to the committee at the time when funding was removed from CAAAPU, there had been not one but 2 reports. What did the minister do? He sent us the second report. However, the problem for the minister is that the second report states that there is no point in reading that report unless you have read the first one. This is from Pannell Kerr Forster, one of the major accounting firms in this country. That firm said it was satisfied that CAAAPU had put in place changes to its administrative arrangements. Mr Reed: Says he - selectively. Mr BELL: The minister has had every chance to fix things up in that regard, but has done nothing. Mr Reed: I talked about it a few weeks ... Mr BELL: I point out to the minister, and I do not intend to dwell on this subject today, that he can try to pull the wool over the eyes of the journalists, and he can try to pull the wool over my eyes, but all I can do is rise in this Assembly and say that the minister has only told half the truth. Mr Reed: Why did they have to put an administrator in there? Why did ATSIC act against them? Mr BELL: I point out to the minister that, if he tries to pull the wool over the eyes of a committee of this Assembly, he is in rather more difficulty, and I point out to the other members of that committee that the minister has deliberately lied to that committee ... Mr Reed: I have not. Mr MANZIE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! In an effort to score some political points, the member for MacDonnell has now sunk to his normal low depths. He is contravening standing orders. If he wants to accuse the minister of lying, he must do so by way of a substantive motion. In a previous sentence, he threatened members of this Assembly by alleging that, if they misled committees, they would be in dire straits. In other words, he is impugning improper motives to members of this Assembly. I think that he should be reminded that he has a role in this Assembly to follow the rules set down and, if he digresses, we should ensure that the wrath of the House is ... Mr BELL: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I say simply this ... Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr MANZIE: This is a typical example. I think he should be firmly reminded of his responsibilities and asked to withdraw all those comments. Mr BELL: Mr Speaker, I speak to the point of order simply to the extent that, in this context and for the sake of the debate, I withdraw the imputation about lying to a committee of 3221