Mrs HICKEY - 1996-10-17
The Chief Minister can be in no doubt now that his Deputy Chief Minister owned shares in a mining company that was active during the time he was Minister for Mines and Energy. Prime Minister Howard's code of conduct states: `Ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities'. Under the Prime Minister's code, it is irrelevant whether or not the company was profitable and it is irrelevant whether or not the minister made a gain. It is the holding of the shares that creates the conflict of interest.
Mr Reed: Would you like to buy them?
Mrs HICKEY: Senator Short and Senator Gibson resigned because they did not abide by those principles. Irrespective of whether or not the Chief Minister will demand his deputy's resignation, will he now concede that, at the moment, the Territory has a lower standard than the Commonwealth and will he agree to introduce a ministerial code of conduct?
Page 1717
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, even if we were to embrace the Commonwealth code of conduct, the key words are `divest himself of the shares'. Can members opposite or anyone listening to this broadcast tell me how one divests oneself of shares in a delisted company when the shares are worthless and are not being traded in?
Mr Bell: You did not know that until yesterday, did you?
Mr STONE: I will pick up the interjection from the member for MacDonnell because the people who listened to the broadcast yesterday would have heard the member for Nhulunbuy. At first, I thought members opposite were doing it on the run and had not researched it, or that they had come deliberately and mischievously into this parliament and peddled information, knowing that the shares were in fact worthless and that the company had been delisted. The interjection from the member for MacDonnell confirms that it was the latter.
Mr Stirling: The December 1995 annual report said it was exploring.
Mr STONE: The member for Nhulunbuy came in here, falsely accused the minister and told only half the story ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is logically not entitled to make that claim.
Mr Stone: That is not a point of order.
Mr BELL: He knows it is wrong. If he wants to make that claim, he must do it by way of a substantive motion. He must withdraw it.
Mr Stone: This hurts, doesn't it?
Mr BELL: No.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BELL: Since the Chief Minister is interjecting, let me tell him this. The reason the delisting is important is that the minister did not find out about it until yesterday whereas he was making those decisions over a 2-year period. He should resign. The Chief Minister knows that. He will not do it.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. In fact, the Chief Minister is making a point in this context. However, I would ask him to be very wary of making accusations that the member had an ulterior motive in introducing that information.
Page 1718
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, we have the revelation now that members opposite clearly knew the shares were delisted and worthless. That tells its own story. They do not have to take my word for it. One of their former colleagues went on talkback radio this morning. He said: `The Reed share issue, at least on the facts that were published last night on the news, is not a case of potential conflict of interest because, at least on the facts that were presented, the shares had been delisted prior to him becoming a minister, so he would not have had a possibility of divesting even if he had wanted to'.
Mrs Hickey: He is wrong.
Mr STONE: That was from Ken Parish, a former member of the Labor Party in this Chamber. Do not come in here and try to weave together a story to besmirch the character of the Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr Bailey: He is wrong.
Members interjecting.
Mr Bailey: What has he tried to do to divest himself of the conflict of interest?
Mr STONE: I will pick up the interjections. Once again, we have one set of rules for government, but another set of rules for members opposite. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain - and no doubt she will have an opportunity to do so, either in front of the parliament, in front of the cameras or in one of her numerous radio program contributions as the day goes on - if the member for MacDonnell has a conflict of interest. He has held numerous shadow portfolios, including that of mines and energy and extensive shareholdings, including in Boral Ltd, BHP, CSR, Brambles, Petros Pty Ltd, Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Martin: He is not a minister.
Mr STONE: I hear the interjection that he is not a minister. However, I tell you what he has the advantage of, Mr Speaker, which ordinary members of the public do not, and that is detailed briefings from departmental officers.
Mrs Hickey: Come on!
Mr STONE: He is privy to information that the public does not have access to.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: I know you want to interject. You do not want the Territory public to hear any of this.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1719
Mr STONE: You are embarrassed, and so you should be. You stand condemned. The reality is that the member for MacDonnell, who is one of the driving forces behind these allegations, has one of the largest, if not the largest, shareholdings in public companies of any member in this Chamber. They are spread across numerous mining companies, including companies that obtain contracts in the mining industry. He has been in receipt of briefings and privileged information that people on the street do not obtain. Members opposite may laugh. However, it goes further than that. Not only does he receive briefings, but he comes into this Chamber and he actually votes on legislation.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: It is interesting that there appear to be 2 sets of rules, one for him and one for me. May I put this nonsense to bed once and for all?
Members interjecting.
Mr Speaker: Order! Will the Chief Minister please resume his seat. I am not prepared to tolerate the continued interjections. I do not mind short, sharp, sensible interjections, but I will not tolerate the drawn-out interjections that are coming from the opposition benches at present. I ask members of the opposition to refrain or I will be naming at least 1 or 2 of them.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, they do not want Territorians to hear this. They are mortally embarrassed by this. The Leader of the Opposition chuckles.
Mrs Hickey: Yes.
Mr STONE: What she forgets is that, to all intents and purposes, she is treated as a minister. That is her ranking in this parliament. Anyone who watched members signing the Remonstrance today would have seen the order of precedence. Next to the name of the Chief Minister comes that of the Leader of the Opposition. She is next in the chain. She enjoys all the attributes of office of a minister in terms of resources and funding. She occupies a special position.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members on the opposition benches that I have asked them to refrain from continued interjection.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, Territorians are asking why the Leader of the Opposition says these rules do not apply to her and her colleagues.
Page 1720
Mr Reed: Would you like to buy them?
Mrs HICKEY: Senator Short and Senator Gibson resigned because they did not abide by those principles. Irrespective of whether or not the Chief Minister will demand his deputy's resignation, will he now concede that, at the moment, the Territory has a lower standard than the Commonwealth and will he agree to introduce a ministerial code of conduct?
Page 1717
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, even if we were to embrace the Commonwealth code of conduct, the key words are `divest himself of the shares'. Can members opposite or anyone listening to this broadcast tell me how one divests oneself of shares in a delisted company when the shares are worthless and are not being traded in?
Mr Bell: You did not know that until yesterday, did you?
Mr STONE: I will pick up the interjection from the member for MacDonnell because the people who listened to the broadcast yesterday would have heard the member for Nhulunbuy. At first, I thought members opposite were doing it on the run and had not researched it, or that they had come deliberately and mischievously into this parliament and peddled information, knowing that the shares were in fact worthless and that the company had been delisted. The interjection from the member for MacDonnell confirms that it was the latter.
Mr Stirling: The December 1995 annual report said it was exploring.
Mr STONE: The member for Nhulunbuy came in here, falsely accused the minister and told only half the story ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The Chief Minister is logically not entitled to make that claim.
Mr Stone: That is not a point of order.
Mr BELL: He knows it is wrong. If he wants to make that claim, he must do it by way of a substantive motion. He must withdraw it.
Mr Stone: This hurts, doesn't it?
Mr BELL: No.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BELL: Since the Chief Minister is interjecting, let me tell him this. The reason the delisting is important is that the minister did not find out about it until yesterday whereas he was making those decisions over a 2-year period. He should resign. The Chief Minister knows that. He will not do it.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. In fact, the Chief Minister is making a point in this context. However, I would ask him to be very wary of making accusations that the member had an ulterior motive in introducing that information.
Page 1718
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, we have the revelation now that members opposite clearly knew the shares were delisted and worthless. That tells its own story. They do not have to take my word for it. One of their former colleagues went on talkback radio this morning. He said: `The Reed share issue, at least on the facts that were published last night on the news, is not a case of potential conflict of interest because, at least on the facts that were presented, the shares had been delisted prior to him becoming a minister, so he would not have had a possibility of divesting even if he had wanted to'.
Mrs Hickey: He is wrong.
Mr STONE: That was from Ken Parish, a former member of the Labor Party in this Chamber. Do not come in here and try to weave together a story to besmirch the character of the Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr Bailey: He is wrong.
Members interjecting.
Mr Bailey: What has he tried to do to divest himself of the conflict of interest?
Mr STONE: I will pick up the interjections. Once again, we have one set of rules for government, but another set of rules for members opposite. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain - and no doubt she will have an opportunity to do so, either in front of the parliament, in front of the cameras or in one of her numerous radio program contributions as the day goes on - if the member for MacDonnell has a conflict of interest. He has held numerous shadow portfolios, including that of mines and energy and extensive shareholdings, including in Boral Ltd, BHP, CSR, Brambles, Petros Pty Ltd, Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Martin: He is not a minister.
Mr STONE: I hear the interjection that he is not a minister. However, I tell you what he has the advantage of, Mr Speaker, which ordinary members of the public do not, and that is detailed briefings from departmental officers.
Mrs Hickey: Come on!
Mr STONE: He is privy to information that the public does not have access to.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: I know you want to interject. You do not want the Territory public to hear any of this.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1719
Mr STONE: You are embarrassed, and so you should be. You stand condemned. The reality is that the member for MacDonnell, who is one of the driving forces behind these allegations, has one of the largest, if not the largest, shareholdings in public companies of any member in this Chamber. They are spread across numerous mining companies, including companies that obtain contracts in the mining industry. He has been in receipt of briefings and privileged information that people on the street do not obtain. Members opposite may laugh. However, it goes further than that. Not only does he receive briefings, but he comes into this Chamber and he actually votes on legislation.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: It is interesting that there appear to be 2 sets of rules, one for him and one for me. May I put this nonsense to bed once and for all?
Members interjecting.
Mr Speaker: Order! Will the Chief Minister please resume his seat. I am not prepared to tolerate the continued interjections. I do not mind short, sharp, sensible interjections, but I will not tolerate the drawn-out interjections that are coming from the opposition benches at present. I ask members of the opposition to refrain or I will be naming at least 1 or 2 of them.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, they do not want Territorians to hear this. They are mortally embarrassed by this. The Leader of the Opposition chuckles.
Mrs Hickey: Yes.
Mr STONE: What she forgets is that, to all intents and purposes, she is treated as a minister. That is her ranking in this parliament. Anyone who watched members signing the Remonstrance today would have seen the order of precedence. Next to the name of the Chief Minister comes that of the Leader of the Opposition. She is next in the chain. She enjoys all the attributes of office of a minister in terms of resources and funding. She occupies a special position.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members on the opposition benches that I have asked them to refrain from continued interjection.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, Territorians are asking why the Leader of the Opposition says these rules do not apply to her and her colleagues.
Page 1720
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016