Mr BAILEY - 1994-08-23
Mr BAILEY (Wanguri)(by leave): Mr Speaker, I am quite happy to discuss this matter at length. In fact, I plan to do that during the adjournment debate later today. Unfortunately, unlike ministers, opposition members do not have the opportunity during Question Time to indulge in extended debate on issues that are basically short ministerial statements.
The Attorney-General has made a number of accusations about what he sees to be my motives in this action. Tonight, during the adjournment debate, I plan to detail a number of events, starting with the misleading comments made by the Chief Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member for Wanguri believes that he has been maligned in some way, he should come to the point of his personal explanation. I have not yet heard ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, this morning, I asked the Chief Minister whether or not he had misled this Assembly. Quite clearly, nothing in that inferred any criticism of any public servant. He spoke about comments that I had made in the public arena in which I said that I believed that the coronial inquest should be reopened. When I said that, I made no comment whatsoever about the actions of public servants.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Where have you been misrepresented?
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, the minister said a moment ago that I did this to have a go at some public servants. That is how I have been misrepresented. That is what I am explaining.
Mr FINCH: A point of order, Mr Speaker! In winding up, the member for Wanguri again accused the Chief Minister of misleading the House when it has been demonstrated that he did not do so. If the member for Wanguri believes that the Chief Minister has done so, and wishes to make that allegation, he knows the substantive motion process that he has to follow.
Mr SPEAKER: That is quite right. If the member for Wanguri...
Mr BAILEY: May I speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: I want first to get to the point of whether there is a situation in which you believe genuinely that you have been misrepresented. I have not heard that established as yet.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, the honourable minister rose and said that he wanted to respond to an earlier question that had not been directed to him. He insinuated that I had specific motives when making the comments that I did, and that the comments had nothing to do with the motives. I am trying to clarify this situation.
Page 58 {Questions}
When I said that I had not said that the Chief Minister had misled the House, the Attorney-General must have had wax in his ears. I asked the Chief Minister quite clearly if he had misled the parliament. I did not say that the Chief Minister had misled it; I asked him whether he had misled the House. The meaning is quite different. In no way did I imply that he had done so.
Speaking to the point of order, there is no point of order because I did not accuse the Chief Minister of misleading the House. I merely asked whether he had. Mr Speaker, if we have resolved the point of order, I am on my feet seeking to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe that you made your personal explanation in saying what you have just said.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I will conclude by saying that, if the honourable minister is prepared to stay tonight for the adjournment debate, I will outline all the details of my concerns.
Page 59 {Questions}
The Attorney-General has made a number of accusations about what he sees to be my motives in this action. Tonight, during the adjournment debate, I plan to detail a number of events, starting with the misleading comments made by the Chief Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member for Wanguri believes that he has been maligned in some way, he should come to the point of his personal explanation. I have not yet heard ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, this morning, I asked the Chief Minister whether or not he had misled this Assembly. Quite clearly, nothing in that inferred any criticism of any public servant. He spoke about comments that I had made in the public arena in which I said that I believed that the coronial inquest should be reopened. When I said that, I made no comment whatsoever about the actions of public servants.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Where have you been misrepresented?
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, the minister said a moment ago that I did this to have a go at some public servants. That is how I have been misrepresented. That is what I am explaining.
Mr FINCH: A point of order, Mr Speaker! In winding up, the member for Wanguri again accused the Chief Minister of misleading the House when it has been demonstrated that he did not do so. If the member for Wanguri believes that the Chief Minister has done so, and wishes to make that allegation, he knows the substantive motion process that he has to follow.
Mr SPEAKER: That is quite right. If the member for Wanguri...
Mr BAILEY: May I speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: I want first to get to the point of whether there is a situation in which you believe genuinely that you have been misrepresented. I have not heard that established as yet.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, the honourable minister rose and said that he wanted to respond to an earlier question that had not been directed to him. He insinuated that I had specific motives when making the comments that I did, and that the comments had nothing to do with the motives. I am trying to clarify this situation.
Page 58 {Questions}
When I said that I had not said that the Chief Minister had misled the House, the Attorney-General must have had wax in his ears. I asked the Chief Minister quite clearly if he had misled the parliament. I did not say that the Chief Minister had misled it; I asked him whether he had misled the House. The meaning is quite different. In no way did I imply that he had done so.
Speaking to the point of order, there is no point of order because I did not accuse the Chief Minister of misleading the House. I merely asked whether he had. Mr Speaker, if we have resolved the point of order, I am on my feet seeking to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe that you made your personal explanation in saying what you have just said.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I will conclude by saying that, if the honourable minister is prepared to stay tonight for the adjournment debate, I will outline all the details of my concerns.
Page 59 {Questions}
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016