Mr EDE - 1995-11-29
Last week, I asked the Chief Minister to tell the Assembly how much taxpayers' money is being spent on agreements for legal cost arrangements, agreements described by the Fitzgerald commission into corruption as wholly objectionable. I asked for this information in regard to legal action instituted by the Minister for Health Services against the member for MacDonnell. It is now one year and one day since I first asked this question of the Chief Minister. The current Chief Minister has had over 5 months in which to answer the question. Will the Chief Minister provide now the details sought or is he so contemptuous of Territorians that he believes he can indulge in practices described as wholly objectionable by a commission into corruption and refuse to be called to account?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's question. In fact, I have an answer for him. If this is such a pressing matter, I would have expected him to have asked the question on the first day of these sittings. In any event, I have the answer here.
Notwithstanding that, I make this observation about the Leader of the Opposition getting to his feet and making phoney remonstrations about how outrageous this is. Has he put pen to paper to tell the Prime Minister that he disapproves of the cost arrangements that his federal party leader has entered into in the federal arena? I suspect that he has had nothing to say about that. That is the problem. Once again, we see the Leader of the Opposition exposed for what he is - a phoney, a man who applies one set of standards when he is talking to Territorians and another set of standards when he is talking to his federal masters in Canberra. However, questions were asked and I will provide members with full answers. The first question was:
Does the Northern Territory government pay legal expenses for ministers who threaten defamation
proceedings, issue proceedings or who are defendants to defamation proceedings? If so, what are the guidelines
for assistance?
The government does pay legal expenses for ministers in defamation proceedings. The government's policy was set out in a letter dated 21 November 1994 from the former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, to the member for MacDonnell, Hon Neil Bell. Mr Speaker, I table a copy of the letter.
Again, it appears that the member for MacDonnell is not talking to you. Do not stand up in this House and say that no one has been telling you what is going on.
Mr Bell: Get on with the rest of the question.
Mr Ede: Come on!
Mr STONE: He received a letter. Are you a little embarrassed by the fact that you stand up and say that no one will answer your question for 12 months, yet it is revealed now
Page 1068
that the former Chief Minister wrote on the subject in November last year to the member for MacDonnell? Didn't he tell you about that? I know that you do not talk to each other much these days.
There are no formal guidelines in relation to the funding of litigation, where ministers sue or are sued for defamation, beyond the protection of the public interest. Governments are expected to use the powers and resources given to them in good faith for the protection of the public interest. A decision about whether a government should fund defamation litigation is one taken in accordance with the protection of the public interest and not to vindicate the rights of an individual's personal reputation. Ministers are prepared to withstand robust criticism, even wrongful criticism. However, the government considers it to be in the public interest to use its resources to dispel unfounded attacks on the integrity or impartiality of ministers carrying out their official functions where there is a risk that such attacks would be taken seriously or would damage the effective administration of government. It is also in the public interest that reliable information be used in the discussion of public issues.
The procedure followed in making a decision to fund a minister is that the minister will make an application to Cabinet.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: In response to the member for Wanguri's interjection, the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and I am sure people listening to this broadcast are interested to hear the answer. I ask him not to interject.
Mr Bailey: Precious pup.
Mr STONE: Are you interested in the answer or not?
Mr Bailey: Yes.
Mr STONE: Then be quiet.
Legal advice will be sought as to the merits of the matter, and the application will then be referred back to Cabinet for consideration. The minister making the application is excluded from Cabinet deliberations in this respect. If successful, the costs of the action will be recovered from the proceedings.
The Leader of the Opposition posed a second question:
If the answer to question 1 is yes, how may actions or complaints have been funded and at what cost per
action?
In the present and previous term of government, it has been necessary to fund 6 matters on behalf of ministers. The costs in respect of these matters are as follows: $1191, $2000, $1358, $10 195, $18 214 and $14 902.
Page 1069
His third question was:
If actions referred to above are funded by the government, what is the budget item that is the source
of these funds?
Expenses incurred in providing legal advice and legal representation for ministers are funded by the agency of the Northern Territory Attorney-General's Department under the Legal Practice Program of the Legal Practice Activity.
I point out that my provision to the Leader of the Opposition of both a full and a frank answer bears out what I have said consistently over these sittings. Members need only to ask the question and they will be provided with the answer.
Mr Ede: 12 months.
Mr STONE: I conduct an open government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: ... and I have provided you with an open, frank and full answer.
Page 1070
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's question. In fact, I have an answer for him. If this is such a pressing matter, I would have expected him to have asked the question on the first day of these sittings. In any event, I have the answer here.
Notwithstanding that, I make this observation about the Leader of the Opposition getting to his feet and making phoney remonstrations about how outrageous this is. Has he put pen to paper to tell the Prime Minister that he disapproves of the cost arrangements that his federal party leader has entered into in the federal arena? I suspect that he has had nothing to say about that. That is the problem. Once again, we see the Leader of the Opposition exposed for what he is - a phoney, a man who applies one set of standards when he is talking to Territorians and another set of standards when he is talking to his federal masters in Canberra. However, questions were asked and I will provide members with full answers. The first question was:
Does the Northern Territory government pay legal expenses for ministers who threaten defamation
proceedings, issue proceedings or who are defendants to defamation proceedings? If so, what are the guidelines
for assistance?
The government does pay legal expenses for ministers in defamation proceedings. The government's policy was set out in a letter dated 21 November 1994 from the former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, to the member for MacDonnell, Hon Neil Bell. Mr Speaker, I table a copy of the letter.
Again, it appears that the member for MacDonnell is not talking to you. Do not stand up in this House and say that no one has been telling you what is going on.
Mr Bell: Get on with the rest of the question.
Mr Ede: Come on!
Mr STONE: He received a letter. Are you a little embarrassed by the fact that you stand up and say that no one will answer your question for 12 months, yet it is revealed now
Page 1068
that the former Chief Minister wrote on the subject in November last year to the member for MacDonnell? Didn't he tell you about that? I know that you do not talk to each other much these days.
There are no formal guidelines in relation to the funding of litigation, where ministers sue or are sued for defamation, beyond the protection of the public interest. Governments are expected to use the powers and resources given to them in good faith for the protection of the public interest. A decision about whether a government should fund defamation litigation is one taken in accordance with the protection of the public interest and not to vindicate the rights of an individual's personal reputation. Ministers are prepared to withstand robust criticism, even wrongful criticism. However, the government considers it to be in the public interest to use its resources to dispel unfounded attacks on the integrity or impartiality of ministers carrying out their official functions where there is a risk that such attacks would be taken seriously or would damage the effective administration of government. It is also in the public interest that reliable information be used in the discussion of public issues.
The procedure followed in making a decision to fund a minister is that the minister will make an application to Cabinet.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: In response to the member for Wanguri's interjection, the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and I am sure people listening to this broadcast are interested to hear the answer. I ask him not to interject.
Mr Bailey: Precious pup.
Mr STONE: Are you interested in the answer or not?
Mr Bailey: Yes.
Mr STONE: Then be quiet.
Legal advice will be sought as to the merits of the matter, and the application will then be referred back to Cabinet for consideration. The minister making the application is excluded from Cabinet deliberations in this respect. If successful, the costs of the action will be recovered from the proceedings.
The Leader of the Opposition posed a second question:
If the answer to question 1 is yes, how may actions or complaints have been funded and at what cost per
action?
In the present and previous term of government, it has been necessary to fund 6 matters on behalf of ministers. The costs in respect of these matters are as follows: $1191, $2000, $1358, $10 195, $18 214 and $14 902.
Page 1069
His third question was:
If actions referred to above are funded by the government, what is the budget item that is the source
of these funds?
Expenses incurred in providing legal advice and legal representation for ministers are funded by the agency of the Northern Territory Attorney-General's Department under the Legal Practice Program of the Legal Practice Activity.
I point out that my provision to the Leader of the Opposition of both a full and a frank answer bears out what I have said consistently over these sittings. Members need only to ask the question and they will be provided with the answer.
Mr Ede: 12 months.
Mr STONE: I conduct an open government ...
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: ... and I have provided you with an open, frank and full answer.
Page 1070
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016