Mr BAILEY - 1996-11-20
In 1993, he twice stood down from his portfolio for the duration of legal action on charges against him of misuse of an individual's private and confidential information for Country Liberal Party purposes. He was found guilty as charged. Yesterday, when his conviction and history of misuse of private information for Country Liberal Party purposes was put to him, he said arrogantly: `Well, so what?'. Will he admit that, if it was necessary for him to stand down when he faced legal action in 1993, it is also necessary for him to stand down now as Minister for Police while breaches of the Criminal Code and other laws which may involve him and his personal staff are the subject of police investigation into possible illegal use of personal information for the benefit of the Country Liberal Party, of which he is the political leader in the Northern Territory?
Mr Reed: You wouldn't give Maurice a fridge in his office.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, that is right. They have a convicted thief in their ranks, and a convicted drunk. If they want to get up and spray this side of the Chamber, they will get it back in bucketfuls - and that is just 2 of you.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: Don't you talk, Jack. I will start on you very easily.
Mr Speaker, there is a clear distinction between my standing down as Attorney-General for the very simple reason that there was an allegation against me personally at that time. There is no allegation against me personally in relation to this matter and there is no allegation against my office. Members opposite must get it very clear in their heads that there is a substantial difference between the 2 scenarios.
Mr Bell: It was a nameless public servant. You had nothing to do with it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Based on the logic of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and he is not renowned for his logic - every time there was any allegation of wrongdoing in a government department that was being investigated, that minister would have to stand down. I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to show me a single example in the world, wherever the Westminster system applies, where the Minister for Police stood down when an allegation was made against a department, as opposed to one against himself or herself.
Mr Bailey: Not many chief ministers have departments that leak information to their own political party.
Page 1784
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is treading on dangerous ground. I warn him once more.
Mr STONE: He should withdraw that allegation, Mr Speaker, because it is unsubstantiated. If he wants to make it, he can do so by way of a substantive motion.
Mr Bailey: What - about your department?
Mr STONE: Yes. Withdraw what you said about the Department of the Chief Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that there is any requirement to withdraw that sort of allegation, but I would be interested to hear exactly what was said.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, he made an allegation against the Department of the Chief Minister. He implied it was a fact. It is a matter that is currently the subject of an investigation. The allegation is unsubstantiated and unproven. The member makes allegations as though they are factual. He is pre-empting a police inquiry.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no requirement for the member to withdraw. The Chief Minister has the capacity to refute the allegation, but it did not cast aspersions on a particular member or on the House.
Mr STONE: You lot must be absolutely desperate to get this issue up even before the police inquiry has been completed. Don't you have the common decency even to give the people who work in the Department of the Chief Minister the benefit of the doubt?
Mr Bailey: You were happy to lie in February.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the remark.
Mr STONE: You do not have the decency even to await the outcome of the police report. You continue with wide-ranging allegations against all staff in the Department of the Chief Minister. You can shake you head, but that is what you are doing in effect. You are condemning and tagging everybody who works in the Department of the Chief Minister. You do not have the decency to await the completion of the police inquiry. You think it is very clever to continue with these allegations, knowing that you can get away with it under the cover of parliamentary privilege. You would not have the courage to go out on the steps of Parliament House and make those allegations against those folk in the Department of the Chief Minister. However, you come in here and continue to bag these people before they have had the benefit of seeing the police report. You are a bunch of cowards. How easy it is for you to come in here and do what you have been doing!
Every dog has his day and what goes around comes around. I look forward to receiving the police report. As I said previously, I have a great deal of confidence in the people in the Department of the Chief Minister. I would be very surprised indeed if there had been any
Page 1785
wrongdoing by any of them. They are all committed and dedicated Territorians. If you think I will stand here and allow this sort of slander and defamation against those folk, then you have another think coming.
Page 1786
Mr Reed: You wouldn't give Maurice a fridge in his office.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, that is right. They have a convicted thief in their ranks, and a convicted drunk. If they want to get up and spray this side of the Chamber, they will get it back in bucketfuls - and that is just 2 of you.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: Don't you talk, Jack. I will start on you very easily.
Mr Speaker, there is a clear distinction between my standing down as Attorney-General for the very simple reason that there was an allegation against me personally at that time. There is no allegation against me personally in relation to this matter and there is no allegation against my office. Members opposite must get it very clear in their heads that there is a substantial difference between the 2 scenarios.
Mr Bell: It was a nameless public servant. You had nothing to do with it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Based on the logic of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and he is not renowned for his logic - every time there was any allegation of wrongdoing in a government department that was being investigated, that minister would have to stand down. I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to show me a single example in the world, wherever the Westminster system applies, where the Minister for Police stood down when an allegation was made against a department, as opposed to one against himself or herself.
Mr Bailey: Not many chief ministers have departments that leak information to their own political party.
Page 1784
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is treading on dangerous ground. I warn him once more.
Mr STONE: He should withdraw that allegation, Mr Speaker, because it is unsubstantiated. If he wants to make it, he can do so by way of a substantive motion.
Mr Bailey: What - about your department?
Mr STONE: Yes. Withdraw what you said about the Department of the Chief Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that there is any requirement to withdraw that sort of allegation, but I would be interested to hear exactly what was said.
Mr STONE: Mr Speaker, he made an allegation against the Department of the Chief Minister. He implied it was a fact. It is a matter that is currently the subject of an investigation. The allegation is unsubstantiated and unproven. The member makes allegations as though they are factual. He is pre-empting a police inquiry.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no requirement for the member to withdraw. The Chief Minister has the capacity to refute the allegation, but it did not cast aspersions on a particular member or on the House.
Mr STONE: You lot must be absolutely desperate to get this issue up even before the police inquiry has been completed. Don't you have the common decency even to give the people who work in the Department of the Chief Minister the benefit of the doubt?
Mr Bailey: You were happy to lie in February.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the remark.
Mr STONE: You do not have the decency even to await the outcome of the police report. You continue with wide-ranging allegations against all staff in the Department of the Chief Minister. You can shake you head, but that is what you are doing in effect. You are condemning and tagging everybody who works in the Department of the Chief Minister. You do not have the decency to await the completion of the police inquiry. You think it is very clever to continue with these allegations, knowing that you can get away with it under the cover of parliamentary privilege. You would not have the courage to go out on the steps of Parliament House and make those allegations against those folk in the Department of the Chief Minister. However, you come in here and continue to bag these people before they have had the benefit of seeing the police report. You are a bunch of cowards. How easy it is for you to come in here and do what you have been doing!
Every dog has his day and what goes around comes around. I look forward to receiving the police report. As I said previously, I have a great deal of confidence in the people in the Department of the Chief Minister. I would be very surprised indeed if there had been any
Page 1785
wrongdoing by any of them. They are all committed and dedicated Territorians. If you think I will stand here and allow this sort of slander and defamation against those folk, then you have another think coming.
Page 1786
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016