Mr STONE - 1996-10-10
Mr STONE (Chief Minister): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is granted. I remind the Chief Minister that he should confine his remarks as closely as possible to the remarks he has put before me, and take not more than about 3 minutes.
Mr STONE: Indeed, Mr Speaker. In fact, my remarks are not to be debated either, according to the standing order.
Allegations were made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition that, in the time that I have been Chief Minister, I have set about restricting debate in this Chamber. I find that somewhat ironic given that, this morning, I even held over the Remonstrance motion to facilitate the participation of the Leader of the Opposition who was out of the Chamber by reason of her suspension. I can think of numerous occasions on which we have extended those types of courtesies to members opposite. When the member for MacDonnell was ejected, we even carried over legislation that was to be dealt with that evening to enable him to be in the Chamber when it was debated. There are many examples where the government has bent over backwards to accommodate the opposition. I reject and resent immensely the allegation that, in some way, I restrict debate in the parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to make some complaint about there being double standards, in that I had used the words `tissue of lies' in this Chamber previously and that it was okay for me but it was not okay for her. I thought it would be interesting to find where I used those words. In her press release, she said that the burden of her complaint was that she was asked to withdraw `a tissue of lies.' The Hansard clearly shows that, in fact, it was more than that. She said: `It was a tissue of lies, and you know it'. The Speaker said: `Order!' The Leader of the Opposition then said: `Absolute lies!' One can only wonder why the Leader of the Opposition conveniently left that out of her media release. More damning is that, when one goes to page 908 of the debates in the Parliamentary Record for Thursday 2 May 1991, one finds that my reference to `a tissue of lies' was directed towards the former member for Barkly, Ian Tuxworth, and not to any member of this Chamber. It was a very different circumstance.
Mr Stirling: What is the difference?
Page 1671
Mr STONE: There is a big difference, since the member for Nhulunbuy has interjected. In fact, there are 2 big differences. The first is that the media release would have members of the media and others believe that it was only `tissue of lies'. In fact, it also included `absolute lies'. Secondly, mine was a reference to a former member in the context of a debate that was occurring on that day. That is hardly a comparison.
I take grave exception to the Leader of the Opposition's claim that she does not get a fair go in this Chamber. I am absolutely amazed that the member for Wanguri has not been given the heave-ho this year. Consider the tolerance that is extended to him when he continues to interrupt and intervene when answers are being given. I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to blame me for her own shortcomings. If she cannot cop the heat, she should move over. I am sure the member for MacDonnell would love to have a go.
Page 1672
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is granted. I remind the Chief Minister that he should confine his remarks as closely as possible to the remarks he has put before me, and take not more than about 3 minutes.
Mr STONE: Indeed, Mr Speaker. In fact, my remarks are not to be debated either, according to the standing order.
Allegations were made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition that, in the time that I have been Chief Minister, I have set about restricting debate in this Chamber. I find that somewhat ironic given that, this morning, I even held over the Remonstrance motion to facilitate the participation of the Leader of the Opposition who was out of the Chamber by reason of her suspension. I can think of numerous occasions on which we have extended those types of courtesies to members opposite. When the member for MacDonnell was ejected, we even carried over legislation that was to be dealt with that evening to enable him to be in the Chamber when it was debated. There are many examples where the government has bent over backwards to accommodate the opposition. I reject and resent immensely the allegation that, in some way, I restrict debate in the parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to make some complaint about there being double standards, in that I had used the words `tissue of lies' in this Chamber previously and that it was okay for me but it was not okay for her. I thought it would be interesting to find where I used those words. In her press release, she said that the burden of her complaint was that she was asked to withdraw `a tissue of lies.' The Hansard clearly shows that, in fact, it was more than that. She said: `It was a tissue of lies, and you know it'. The Speaker said: `Order!' The Leader of the Opposition then said: `Absolute lies!' One can only wonder why the Leader of the Opposition conveniently left that out of her media release. More damning is that, when one goes to page 908 of the debates in the Parliamentary Record for Thursday 2 May 1991, one finds that my reference to `a tissue of lies' was directed towards the former member for Barkly, Ian Tuxworth, and not to any member of this Chamber. It was a very different circumstance.
Mr Stirling: What is the difference?
Page 1671
Mr STONE: There is a big difference, since the member for Nhulunbuy has interjected. In fact, there are 2 big differences. The first is that the media release would have members of the media and others believe that it was only `tissue of lies'. In fact, it also included `absolute lies'. Secondly, mine was a reference to a former member in the context of a debate that was occurring on that day. That is hardly a comparison.
I take grave exception to the Leader of the Opposition's claim that she does not get a fair go in this Chamber. I am absolutely amazed that the member for Wanguri has not been given the heave-ho this year. Consider the tolerance that is extended to him when he continues to interrupt and intervene when answers are being given. I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to blame me for her own shortcomings. If she cannot cop the heat, she should move over. I am sure the member for MacDonnell would love to have a go.
Page 1672
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016