- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 20 October 2005
Special Adjournment
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 23 of 42
| Next Item »
Page: 19067
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Police, and Minister for Utilities) [3.49 p.m.]: I move:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 8 November 2005 at 2.15 p.m.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [3.49 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out "Tuesday 8 November 2005 at 2.15 p.m." with a view to inserting instead "tomorrow at 10.00 a.m."
In support of my amendment, I foreshadow that tomorrow I will move a motion to condemn the Premier for condoning violence by promoting the Minister for Roads to the Cabinet. Ten minutes ago the Premier stood here and berated the Opposition for condoning violence. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour took his medicine and accepted his guilt. He actually proposed to actively support the motion against him, and he did so. He fully accepted his culpability and apologised. He also has resigned from the shadow Cabinet. The Premier has the temerity to condemn us for condoning violence because honourable member for Coffs Harbour is man enough to accept his wrongful actions. The first person Premier Iemma promoted into his Cabinet was Minister for Roads, Joe Tripodi, who still has outstanding against him allegations that he indecently assaulted Ms C in this building—not in the Chamber but in the parliamentary building. A complaint along those lines was given to the police and that matter has never been finalised.
The next matter against Minister for Roads is that when he was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the then professional director of that committee took out an apprehended violence order against him. Yet the Minister for Roads was the first person Premier Iemma promoted to his Cabinet. The former director of the Public Accounts Committee claimed, and I am quoting from the Newcastle Herald on 10 March 2001, that the member for Fairfield "threatened and intimidated her". This is the same member for Fairfield who ran out on tiptoes on Tuesday.
I accept that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour did the wrong thing. He accepts he did the wrong thing—that is the important point. He has done his mea culpa, he has set the example by accepting his responsibility. On the other hand, not only has Minister for Roads not accepted any responsibility, but the Premier has not accepted any responsibility for his actions. He promoted him to Cabinet, pursuant to some dirty little deal to get the numbers to become Premier. That is how venal it all this! That is how appalling and disgraceful it is! We might have let it pass by saying, okay, the wrong thing was done on our side, we accept that, we will finish the week quietly, particularly given the way in which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour spoke. I thought he spoke magnanimously and magnificently yesterday. It is the best speech I have heard in my 18 years in Parliament. It was a simple example to anybody of any age who has done wrong to admit that they have done wrong, accept responsibility for it, and take their medicine and punishment as it comes.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Eight days on full pay!
Mr ANDREW TINK: That was your motion.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: That is what you agreed to.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will cease calling out.
Mr ANDREW TINK: No, that is what your Leader of the House moved the punishment would be. That was your choice on behalf of the Government to move that punishment. The motion setting out the punishment having been moved, the member for Coffs Harbour was the first person to accept it. He did so openly and fulsomely. There the matter should have rested. Had it done so, I for one would have had a quiet afternoon today.
But the Premier had another go at the honourable member for Coffs Harbour yesterday, no doubt relying on the advice—here is another thing while I think about it—of that magnificent person who is now his chief of staff, Mike Kaiser. He will never show his face in the Chamber. Why not? Because he has admitted to committing electoral fraud. He was forced to quit his seat of Woodridge in the Queensland Parliament—I am quoting here from the ABC on Monday 19 September 2005—after admitting to the 2001 Shepherdson inquiry into electoral fraud that he signed a false enrolment form in 1986. If one looks at the Shepherdson inquiry report, one sees this:
Enrolment of Michael Kaiser
In 1986 Michael Kaiser was a young member of the Party. He admitted to the Inquiry that he signed an electoral enrolment form dated 7 January 1986 enrolling him at 11 Seventh Avenue, Coorparoo, even though he never lived there.
The Premier today lectured us on propriety. He has made a free will choice to select as his chief of staff—everybody here knows the importance of a Premier's chief of staff—somebody who is an admitted electoral fraudster. How dare he come in here and lecture us on propriety. How dare he come in here and say the honourable member for Coffs Harbour should do more than was in the Government's motion by way of punishment. It is an absolute nonsense. A third great incident again underlines just what a stupid fool the Premier is. If he is going to talk about the honourable member for Coffs Harbour—
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order. I ask that you direct the honourable gentleman to use parliamentary language in this place and not offend the House.
Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member for Epping has now made a number of attacks against members of this House and persons who are not members of this House. I direct him to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair, which is his amendment, which asks the House to meet tomorrow, be agreed to.
Mr ANDREW TINK: I will. I apologise for my language. Briefly there I was following the disgraceful precedent set by the Minister's parliamentary and ministerial colleague the Minister for Planning. He has used disgraceful and disgusting language—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will not flout the direction of the Chair. He is well aware of the difference between comments made outside the House and comments made directly to members within the Chamber.
Mr ANDREW TINK:.We are talking about standards, Mr Speaker. Forgive me for getting a little angry, but with the personal track record of this Premier in promoting people who have disgraceful records I think I am within my rights this afternoon to get a little angry that we are copping a lecture for the second day in a row in relation to a man who has taken his punishment as moved by the House. The other reason we ought to be sitting tomorrow is that rather than have the Premier answer a question here and not allow us to respond—he shot out the door in true Joe Tripodi fashion, on tiptoes—we ought to have a chance to debate this face to face.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order. The last comment is precisely why the reactions of the Opposition are so offensive. They are persisting with this snide remark about running away, and it is clearly not in order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I remind the honourable member for Epping again to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
Mr ANDREW TINK: With respect, the question is whether the House should sit tomorrow. I am trying to make the case that the Premier, having answered this question this afternoon, we should come back here tomorrow to debate it substantively so we can go one to one with the Minister for Roads, the honourable member for Murray-Darling and anybody else who wants to debate propriety. If the Minister for Planning wants to debate propriety in relation to the use of language, we will debate him as well.
The gravamen of what the Premier was saying about the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was that he should no longer be a member of The Nationals parliamentary caucus. If the Premier is not to be a complete hypocrite, he might explain why he suffers the honourable member for Murray-Darling to be a member of the Labor caucus. The honourable member for Murray-Darling, drunk in the House, lunged at one of his fellow members of Parliament, honourable member for Strathfield.
Mr Tony Stewart: Point of order. The member knows that if anyone was drunk in the House it was the member for Coffs Harbour on Tuesday night, when he slurred his words, swayed, and could not control himself, and it ended in violence.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bankstown will resume his seat.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of Order: My point of order relates to your earlier ruling about language in this Chamber. You made one ruling against us and no ruling against him. He just asserted that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was drunk in this Chamber on Tuesday night. No-one has ever said such a thing until now and you do not say a thing about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order. A number of assertions have been made about other members of the House that have almost amounted to substantive attack on those members. A number of assertions have been made about persons who are not members of the House. I direct members of the Government and the Opposition to comply with the standing orders. If a member proposes to launch a substantial attack on another member, it must be by way of substantive motion. Persons outside the Chamber have little recourse in defending themselves against accusations made in this House. Members should think seriously before besmirching the reputation of members of the public. The honourable member for Epping has the call.
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is nothing before the House on which to base a point of order. The honourable member for East Hills will resume his seat. The honourable member for Epping has the call.
Mr ANDREW TINK: Mr Speaker—
Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will resume his seat.
Mr Alan Ashton: There is now something before the chair.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for East Hills will resume his seat. I will hear further from the honourable member for Epping.
Mr ANDREW TINK: The honourable member for Lachlan reminds me in relation to your ruling that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is no longer in the House—he is outside the House as well—so the rule should apply to him.
Mr Steve Whan: He's a member of the House.
Mr ANDREW TINK: He is not a member who has an opportunity to respond at this time. The point is well taken. Let me not be misunderstood, I am not seeking to raise questions about anybody outside the House. Certainly I am seeking to raise matters about some members of this House with a view to having those matters debated tomorrow. That is my whole point. The House should sit tomorrow to debate issues concerning a number of members of the House precisely because the Premier has put in issue the ongoing conduct of somebody who, as far as we are concerned, acted with the greatest honour we have seen in this place in a long time after making what was—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Government will come to order. Members of the Government will cease calling out.
Mr ANDREW TINK: —a very serious mistake. On the other hand the Premier suffers a conga line of people in the Cabinet.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Point of order—
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. The honourable member for Newcastle has the call.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: My point of order goes to the operation of this House within the standing orders. You made it very clear within the standing orders that if a substantive attack is to made against any member of this House, whether it be the Premier, whether it be the Minister or whether it be an individual member of the House, it should be by substantive motion. The honourable member opposite is not speaking in support of sitting tomorrow; rather, he is continually launching attacks—
Mr Ian Armstrong: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am already listening to a point of order. The honourable member for Lachlan will resume his seat.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: —against the democratic processes of this House, just as yesterday we saw them launched against—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat. I have heard enough on the point of order. I again remind the honourable member for Epping that if he wishes to launch an attack on a member of the Chamber he must do so by way of substantive motion. He cannot do so under the guise of debating the question before the Chair, which is the special adjournment motion moved by the Leader of the House. The honourable member for Epping has the call.
Mr ANDREW TINK: It is understandable that Government members are extremely delicate about the Premier's hypocrisy and their own hypocrisy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, I ask the honourable member for Epping to take care with the words he uses. If he is going to launch a substantial attack on the Premier he should do it by way of substantive motion.
Mr ANDREW TINK: That is what I am proposing for tomorrow, because the Premier launched a substantive attack against the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. We think it is a disgrace because the honourable member for Coffs Harbour accepted every punishment the Government proposed. This bunch of hypocrites are baying for more, but they suffer the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the Minister for Roads amongst their number in caucus.
Mr Steve Whan: Point of order—
Mr ANDREW TINK: People who molest women—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Epping will resume his seat. The honourable member for Monaro has the call.
Mr Steve Whan: My point of order is that it has been made very clear here today that earlier the Premier was talking about the conduct of the Opposition in defending the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Yet again in this House we hear the Opposition member straying from his motion and casting aspersions on members of the House with disdain. I note that the honourable member for Epping has not even bothered to sit down, in accordance with the standing orders, while I raise a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Epping will resume their seats. There is substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Epping must show reasons why the House should agree to his amendment. He should not attack another member of the House, the Premier or anyone else, in substantiating why the House should meet tomorrow. The honourable member for Monaro has taken a point of order that is almost a debating point. I am loath to deal with it, but accusations have been made on both sides of the House as to exactly what the Premier has said. I do not believe that should be the substance of this debate. The subject matter of the debate should be the reasons put forward by the honourable member for Epping as to why the motion of the Leader of the House should be amended to require the House to meet tomorrow.
Mr ANDREW TINK: The Premier has twice now spoken about the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who, we believe, has complied honourably and recognised his mistake. We want an opportunity tomorrow to rejoin and respond to the Premier's ongoing attacks against somebody who has set an example by admitting his culpability and doing the right thing.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.08 p.m.]: The business of the House is paramount and the business of the House relates to the sitting times of the House. The Government has moved that the House be adjourned until a certain date. The Opposition, in turn, is moving that the House sit tomorrow. The Opposition wants to sit tomorrow because it wants to debate the conduct of the Minister for Roads. The Opposition intends, at the sitting tomorrow, to debate the administration of the Minister for Roads—and what an administration it has been!
Anyone who saw the cartoon in today's Daily Telegraph would know how the public feels about the administration of the Minister for Roads. The Opposition wishes to debate the conduct of the Minister for Roads and his fitness, or lack of fitness, to hold office in this Parliament. These issues do not only relate to the administration of public office, they are integral to the business of the House, whether the Minister is fit to sit in the House, and whether he is fit to be a Minister. The Minister for Roads has been the subject of an inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. The first ICAC inquiry relating to the Minister was entitled "Investigation into aspects connected with an alleged indecent assault at Parliament House on 14/15 September 2000". That report was tabled in this House.
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Point of order: The honourable member for Gosford has had since 2000, when the ICAC report was presented, to attack the Minister by way of substantive motion, if he so wished. The reference by the honourable member for Gosford to the ICAC report is purely a device to take up the time of the House instead of proceeding with the business of the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. Under the guise of debating the amendment, the Opposition is again attacking the Minister. I direct the honourable member for Gosford to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: One must choose one's words most carefully and should use only material that is officially available to the House. One should refer only to the reports that you, Mr Speaker, table in the House, and they include reports from the Independent Commission Against Corruption. There should not be recourse to media or personal speculation, but rather there should be reference to ICAC reports. What did ICAC find in relation to the Minister for Roads?
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order: Clearly, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Gosford is flouting your ruling and is proceeding to refer to the report. He is not referring to anything to do with the substance of the motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I again direct the honourable member for Gosford to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
Mr Gerard Martin: I draw attention to the time.
Mr SPEAKER: I have already drawn the attention of the Clerk to the clock.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Tomorrow the House should debate the outstanding service rendered by the Government Whip, who acts as a timekeeper in his spare time. He can be seen at soccer matches on Saturday morning, running up and down with his little watch, calling, "Time, guys, time!" That is just one of the marvellous gifts he brings to the House. Tomorrow the Opposition wishes to debate the conduct of public administration in New South Wales. The Opposition wishes to know how New South Wales is being administered and we want to know about the fitness of the Minister for Roads to hold high office in this State.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to order.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I point out that some matters are common ground. There are some things that everybody agrees upon. The ICAC report states, " ... it was common ground that the incident involved Mr Tripodi"—
Mr Kevin Greene: Point of order: Only recently the honourable member for Gosford said it is important to choose one's words wisely in discussing a matter such as the one before the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is attempting to listen to the honourable member for Georges River.
Mr Kevin Greene: Mr Speaker, I therefore ask you to bring the honourable member for Gosford back to the leave of motion, which is whether the House should return tomorrow at 10.00 a.m.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. It seems to me that the reading by the honourable member for Gosford of an Independent Commission Against Corruption report that was published some years ago concerning another member of this House does not fall far short of an attack on that member. Again I direct the honourable member for Gosford to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair and to comply with the standing orders.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Honourable members, I thank the Leader of the House for allowing this debate to proceed this afternoon. The Leader of the House is most appreciative of the friendship of the Minister for Roads and for the way in which the Minister for Roads has stood by him through thick and thin for many years. I noticed the touching solicitude of the Leader of the House last night when he said to Minister Tripodi, "Are you okay, mate?" They were the first words he has spoken to the Minister for Roads since he was stabbed in the back over the premiership.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Point of order: The honourable member for Gosford has been the most treacherous person against his leader.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will resume his seat.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Opposition appreciates the opportunity to debate important matters. We appreciate the opportunity of debate that is provided by the standing orders, though that opportunity is not often used. It is only in times of great tension and great peril that it is used, such as events that occurred in the Parliament on that terrible day when we lost Bob Carr.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.15 p.m. business is interrupted. I will now put the question.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 44
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Brown
Mr Campbell
Mr Chaytor
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Mr Daley
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene | Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 32
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard | Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
| Ms Allan | Mr Merton |
| Ms Gadiel | Mr Piccoli |
| Mr Price | Ms Seaton |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It being after 4.15 p.m. the House will now proceed to the noting of private members' statements.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:18 : Update this page