Mrs HICKEY - 1996-05-21
The member for Leanyer needs no reminding of his legal action against the ABC and the member for MacDonnell. Does he have a written agreement with the Country Liberal Party administration, and in particular the members of Cabinet, that he will repay to the government any proceeds of any damages if his action is successful?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, while this is hardly an appropriate ministerial question, I will answer because I understand the member for MacDonnell is extremely touchy about this matter. We have heard all sorts of nonsense about the appropriateness or otherwise of governments being prepared to underwrite the legal expenses of those ministers who have been maligned publicly. Cases, such as that of Carmen Lawrence, have been used by the member for MacDonnell as examples to suggest to this government that in no circumstance should any minister be offered protection from unreasonable attacks in a public sense - attacks not based on fact, but made only on the basis that the person being maligned or defamed happened to be a minister. If I had been anyone else, I do not think the honourable member would have accused me of misusing taxpayers' funds in such a blatant way.
I will not talk too much about the case because it will be a matter for the court to determine. However, the difference between Carmen Lawrence and Fred Finch is this: Carmen Lawrence was picking up money from the federal government for actions pertaining to
Page 1389
her role as a minister in a state government. I do not expect that the taxpayer will pay anything in this instance. I expect that somebody else will be paying. In this case, not only were the accusations made against me quite clearly untrue, but they were known by the accuser and by the media deliverer of them to be untrue. We are talking about 2 totally different scenarios altogether.
I invite members on the benches opposite to ask themselves what they would do if their family were maligned and hurt by an absolute, downright lie, told not just within the protection of this Assembly, but in the public arena on the eve of a Territory election, with the absolutely blatant intent of doing them damage. Would they turn the other cheek? Is that what they would do? No, it is not.
I cannot predict the outcome of those 2 actions. Certainly in the case of the member for MacDonnell, if damages are awarded, it will afford me absolute delight to find a charity that will get right up the nose of the honourable member and make him feel even better about subsequent payments that he may or may not have to make. The rest of the matter, I think, belongs quite clearly in the court and that is where it will be heard.
Mr Bell: Are you going to tell us whether or not there is an agreement, Fred?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1390
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, while this is hardly an appropriate ministerial question, I will answer because I understand the member for MacDonnell is extremely touchy about this matter. We have heard all sorts of nonsense about the appropriateness or otherwise of governments being prepared to underwrite the legal expenses of those ministers who have been maligned publicly. Cases, such as that of Carmen Lawrence, have been used by the member for MacDonnell as examples to suggest to this government that in no circumstance should any minister be offered protection from unreasonable attacks in a public sense - attacks not based on fact, but made only on the basis that the person being maligned or defamed happened to be a minister. If I had been anyone else, I do not think the honourable member would have accused me of misusing taxpayers' funds in such a blatant way.
I will not talk too much about the case because it will be a matter for the court to determine. However, the difference between Carmen Lawrence and Fred Finch is this: Carmen Lawrence was picking up money from the federal government for actions pertaining to
Page 1389
her role as a minister in a state government. I do not expect that the taxpayer will pay anything in this instance. I expect that somebody else will be paying. In this case, not only were the accusations made against me quite clearly untrue, but they were known by the accuser and by the media deliverer of them to be untrue. We are talking about 2 totally different scenarios altogether.
I invite members on the benches opposite to ask themselves what they would do if their family were maligned and hurt by an absolute, downright lie, told not just within the protection of this Assembly, but in the public arena on the eve of a Territory election, with the absolutely blatant intent of doing them damage. Would they turn the other cheek? Is that what they would do? No, it is not.
I cannot predict the outcome of those 2 actions. Certainly in the case of the member for MacDonnell, if damages are awarded, it will afford me absolute delight to find a charity that will get right up the nose of the honourable member and make him feel even better about subsequent payments that he may or may not have to make. The rest of the matter, I think, belongs quite clearly in the court and that is where it will be heard.
Mr Bell: Are you going to tell us whether or not there is an agreement, Fred?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1390
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016