Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)



Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)


Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

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 - Tuesday 27 February 1990 Mr Manzi e: What are you ta 1 king about? The report wa stab 1 ed in the House for you to deliberate on so that you could contribute with some sense . . Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will allow the member for MacDonnell to have his say in silence. Mr BELL: Having said that, I trust that the government will take on board the comments that I have made about reasoned public debate and preparation for that debate. I appreciate too that there is no formal ob 1i gat i on on the government in terms of standi ng orders. However, it has been accepted practice whenever possible, as I am sure you will agree Mr Speaker, that statements to this Assembly are circulated in advance so that all members have an opportunity to comment on them. I trust that, in future, the government will accept my comments in the manner in which they are given. I regret the necessity that prompted me to raise my voice earlier, Mr Speaker, but the reason I did so was just to make my voice heard. Mr Manzie: You have wasted your opportunity. Mr BELL: give notice to the Attorney-General that I will be studying the report very carefully and I will be contacting people in the community, particularly people involved with the criminal justice system, to obtain their views. I seek the leave of the House to continue my comments at a later hour. Leave denied. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr MANZIE (Attorney-General )(by 1 eave): Mr Speaker, the performance of the member for MacDonnell on the tabling of this paper was absolutely woeful. Normally, papers are deemed to have been tabled. Reams of them appear on our desks and we are supposed to read them, digest them and possibly speak on them during an adjournment debate. I tabled this particular paper specifically with a short statement so that members could study it, so that it could be discussed in the community, and so that there could be sensible debate in the House. What we have witnessed is the member for MacDonne 11 pretendi ng to be pa i ned. He di d not bother to read the paper, but carried on as though something improper had been done. In fact, he had been given the opportunity to debate the contents of the paper in a sensible, logical way after perusing it and thinking and talking about it. But, that was not good enough for him. He wasted his debating time, when he should have used it to make a sensible contribution. Trying to castigate ... Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! the Attorney-General should be aware and as I for the benefit of explaining parts of the misunderstood. Mr SPEAKER: There is a poi nt of order. Attorney-General has made his point. Debate adjourned. STATEMENT Climatic Change The personal explanation, as reca 11 the standi ng order, is mi n i ster I s speech whi ch were I believe that the honourable Mr HATTON (Conservation): ~r Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the Ministerial Conference on Atmospheric Pollution and Climate 8758