Department of the Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory Government

Mr STONE - 1995-11-30

Mr STONE (Chief Minister): Mr Speaker, I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that I would provide him with details relating to the matter, involving Minister Manzie, which could be called the `Rhonda affair' In that matter, Minister Manzie was falsely and wrongly accused and defamed. It was the subject of a report. Indeed, judgment was entered subsequently against the woman concerned. Not long after that, it was found that she was impecunious, having no means, but the horrific damage had been done and distress had been caused to Minister Manzie as a result of the very false allegations that were made against him. The cost of those legal proceedings was $23 946.

Mr Ede: Who was the other party involved? Was it the NT News or the ABC?

Mr STONE: I think it was the NT News.

Members will recall those very damaging, false and scurrilous allegations that were found to be totally untrue. That is a classic example of a case where a minister has every expectation of defending their reputation and ...

Mr Ede: This is the only place in Australia that still does this.

Members interjecting.

Page 1114

Mr STONE: ... should have every opportunity to reject those allegations.

Mr Bailey: Those cases are totally different.

Mr STONE: I pick up the member for Wanguri's interjection. Indeed, it is totally different in that that is a cost agreement to defend a minister concerning behaviour that occurred in another parliament in another place at another time. That is a big difference.

Mr Bailey: That is only happening because he is a federal minister.

Mr Ede: The big difference is that you are prosecuting, not defending.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr STONE: I listened with great interest to what the former Premier of Tasmania said the other evening on the 7.30 Report about such agreements, and I agree with him. I thought that I saw the Leader of the Opposition nod there - did he? That was agreeing that a minister of the Crown ...

Mr Ede: No, I did not hear what he said.

Mr STONE: ... who is accused, particularly in defamation proceedings where one faces scurrilous, false and damaging allegations which are found to be false and damaging, should have an expectation that the state will defend their reputation and standing.

Mr Bailey: No, that is defending an attack. That is quite different.

Mr STONE: Anyway, I provide the ...

Mr Hatton interjecting.

Mr Bell: Is this a ministerial statement?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr STONE: You are not complaining about me providing additional information, are you?

Mr Bell: No, I want a full debate on it. Will you make a statement?

Mr STONE: I pick up the member for MacDonnell's interjection. He says that he wants a full debate on it.

Mr Bell: Yes.

Mr STONE: You had a General Business day during these sittings.

Page 1115

Mr Bailey: We have one General Business day every 12 sitting days, the least of any parliament in Australia.

Mr STONE: The member for MacDonnell could have had his big debate then, but I gather he cannot get anything up on the opposition's agenda. That has been very evident to me during the course of these sittings.

Mr Bell: Don't you worry. Read Hansard and you will see what I get on the agenda.

Mr STONE: You had your opportunity on General Business day. It was one of the most appalling performances I have seen from the opposition in recent history. You could have run the issue then had you wanted to do so.

Page 1116
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016