Mrs HICKEY - 1997-11-26
Will he explain why he deserves appointment as a Queen's Counsel when he has a charge of unprofessional conduct against his name, when he was required to pay a $1000 fine for that unprofessional conduct, and when the appointment process is a sham because he appointed himself? Will he please name another QC who has a charge of unprofessional conduct against his name?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, that was an entirely predictable question from the Leader of the Opposition. I would have been disappointed if she had not started with that. If that is the most serious issue that she can take to Territorians in this first Question Time of the new term, then she has learned absolutely nothing. What appears to have eluded the Leader of the Opposition is that she has just led Labor in the Northern Territory to one of the most comprehensive defeats in its history. She has achieved a result that must go down as one of the most appalling of all time. What is remarkable is that she is still there.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under standing order 67, this is irrelevant.
Mr Stone: I am leading up to it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. We are still listening to Chief Minister's answer.
Mr STONE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a preamble to what is to come. We have a clear indication that the Labor Party has learned absolutely nothing. As I said, one can only speculate as to why the Leader of the Opposition still holds that position. We are told that Labor held a great party room meeting. There were 3 candidates - the member for Wanguri, the member for Barkly and the member for Arnhem. The member for Arnhem gained 3 votes. The member for Barkly ...
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This will be discussed, no doubt, in the address-in-reply debate. I ask you to direct the Chief Minister to answer the question. Why does he deserve to be a Queen's Counsel?
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: We know John Reeves is a fine barrister.
Madam SPEAKER: That is enough.
Ms Martin: And Colin McDonald.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, I do not doubt that I will have ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fannie Bay, we are interested in the Chief Minister's reply. Kindly refrain from interjecting and allow the Chief Minister to have the floor.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, no doubt I will have ...
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Do not continue, Chief Minister, until you have the floor. Let me make this quite clear here and now. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I presume she has asked it because she wants an answer to it.
Mr Bailey: He has not even started to answer it yet.
Madam SPEAKER: Pay him the courtesy of being quiet and listening.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, no doubt I will have an opportunity to talk about this debacle in the Labor party room and the 3-way split on the election of the Leader of the Opposition and the way in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saved himself by trading his vote to enable him to retain that position. That is exactly what happened. There are enough members sitting on that side who wanted to tell that story, but ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know you are new to the job and may not be familiar with standing orders, but the suggestion is that members of this side should listen while the Chief Minister rambles on. Standing Order 113 states quite clearly that an answer shall be relevant to the question. This answer has no
Page 13
relevance whatsoever to the question of his appointing - or anointing, whatever one wants to call it - himself a QC. That is what the question was about. I am hoping that, this time, the Speaker will rule that there is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I will decide what I will rule, not you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please get on with the question.
Mr Bailey: The answer.
Mr STONE: In terms of the appointment, had members opposite bothered to make their inquiries, they would know what the real story is. The reality is ...
Mr Bailey: That you are an arrogant twit.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, they are not interested in the answer. They do not want Territorians to understand the fact that the appointment of the first law officer was not made by me. A Cabinet decision was taken in my government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: You asked me the question and I am attempting to give you the answer.
Mr Bailey: Who suggested it first? Which one said: `Shane, we want you to be a QC'?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: The reality is that the first law officer is entitled to the commission. What I want to know is this: we have a shadow attorney-general sitting over there who, as I understand it, sat on the national executive of the Labor Party at some stage ...
Mr Stirling: That is not true.
Mr STONE: It is not true? I will withdraw that he actually sat in that forum, but certainly the Leader of the Opposition has sat in that forum. Did she or any of her predecessors ever take to task any Labor Attorney-General who took the commission? They date back as far as Don Dunstan and continue through to Joe Berinson and Frank Walker. The opposition said absolutely nothing.
Mr Bailey: Everingham did not ...
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri can interject all he wants but, if they want to talk about me, those in the Labor Party have a real point of distinction. They have a shadow attorney-general who has a conviction. They hold him up as the next Attorney-General. They must be joking. They have absolutely no credibility on this issue. They have said nothing about the appointments of Gareth Evans, Frank Walker, Joe Berinson or any number of Labor Attorneys-General who became QCs. They said nothing, and that is why they stand condemned. They say that it is good enough for New South Wales and Victoria, including Jim Kennon, but it is not good enough for the Territory. I will not accept that sort of double dealing for Territorians. Any Attorney-General who is a legal practitioner, whether under a Labor government or a CLP government, has an entitlement to the commission, and they should take it.
Page 14
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, that was an entirely predictable question from the Leader of the Opposition. I would have been disappointed if she had not started with that. If that is the most serious issue that she can take to Territorians in this first Question Time of the new term, then she has learned absolutely nothing. What appears to have eluded the Leader of the Opposition is that she has just led Labor in the Northern Territory to one of the most comprehensive defeats in its history. She has achieved a result that must go down as one of the most appalling of all time. What is remarkable is that she is still there.
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under standing order 67, this is irrelevant.
Mr Stone: I am leading up to it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. We are still listening to Chief Minister's answer.
Mr STONE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a preamble to what is to come. We have a clear indication that the Labor Party has learned absolutely nothing. As I said, one can only speculate as to why the Leader of the Opposition still holds that position. We are told that Labor held a great party room meeting. There were 3 candidates - the member for Wanguri, the member for Barkly and the member for Arnhem. The member for Arnhem gained 3 votes. The member for Barkly ...
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This will be discussed, no doubt, in the address-in-reply debate. I ask you to direct the Chief Minister to answer the question. Why does he deserve to be a Queen's Counsel?
Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: We know John Reeves is a fine barrister.
Madam SPEAKER: That is enough.
Ms Martin: And Colin McDonald.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, I do not doubt that I will have ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fannie Bay, we are interested in the Chief Minister's reply. Kindly refrain from interjecting and allow the Chief Minister to have the floor.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, no doubt I will have ...
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Do not continue, Chief Minister, until you have the floor. Let me make this quite clear here and now. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I presume she has asked it because she wants an answer to it.
Mr Bailey: He has not even started to answer it yet.
Madam SPEAKER: Pay him the courtesy of being quiet and listening.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, no doubt I will have an opportunity to talk about this debacle in the Labor party room and the 3-way split on the election of the Leader of the Opposition and the way in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saved himself by trading his vote to enable him to retain that position. That is exactly what happened. There are enough members sitting on that side who wanted to tell that story, but ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know you are new to the job and may not be familiar with standing orders, but the suggestion is that members of this side should listen while the Chief Minister rambles on. Standing Order 113 states quite clearly that an answer shall be relevant to the question. This answer has no
Page 13
relevance whatsoever to the question of his appointing - or anointing, whatever one wants to call it - himself a QC. That is what the question was about. I am hoping that, this time, the Speaker will rule that there is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I will decide what I will rule, not you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please get on with the question.
Mr Bailey: The answer.
Mr STONE: In terms of the appointment, had members opposite bothered to make their inquiries, they would know what the real story is. The reality is ...
Mr Bailey: That you are an arrogant twit.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark.
Mr STONE: Madam Speaker, they are not interested in the answer. They do not want Territorians to understand the fact that the appointment of the first law officer was not made by me. A Cabinet decision was taken in my government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: You asked me the question and I am attempting to give you the answer.
Mr Bailey: Who suggested it first? Which one said: `Shane, we want you to be a QC'?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: The reality is that the first law officer is entitled to the commission. What I want to know is this: we have a shadow attorney-general sitting over there who, as I understand it, sat on the national executive of the Labor Party at some stage ...
Mr Stirling: That is not true.
Mr STONE: It is not true? I will withdraw that he actually sat in that forum, but certainly the Leader of the Opposition has sat in that forum. Did she or any of her predecessors ever take to task any Labor Attorney-General who took the commission? They date back as far as Don Dunstan and continue through to Joe Berinson and Frank Walker. The opposition said absolutely nothing.
Mr Bailey: Everingham did not ...
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri can interject all he wants but, if they want to talk about me, those in the Labor Party have a real point of distinction. They have a shadow attorney-general who has a conviction. They hold him up as the next Attorney-General. They must be joking. They have absolutely no credibility on this issue. They have said nothing about the appointments of Gareth Evans, Frank Walker, Joe Berinson or any number of Labor Attorneys-General who became QCs. They said nothing, and that is why they stand condemned. They say that it is good enough for New South Wales and Victoria, including Jim Kennon, but it is not good enough for the Territory. I will not accept that sort of double dealing for Territorians. Any Attorney-General who is a legal practitioner, whether under a Labor government or a CLP government, has an entitlement to the commission, and they should take it.
Page 14
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016