Mr BELL - 1996-05-16
I refer him to the Attorney-General's claim in the House last night that both the South Australian and Western Australian governments publicly fund ministers to conduct private
Page 1372
defamation actions. Will the Chief Minister admit that, contrary to those statements by the Attorney-General, no ministers in South Australia or Western Australia have been funded with public moneys to launch private defamation proceedings? If so, does he admit therefore that his is now the only government in Australia that, as a matter of policy and in contravention of the recommendations of the Fitzgerald royal commission, provides this unaccounted private benefit to its ministers?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not know what a private defamation action is. I know what a defamation action is. However, there is nothing private about it. When the costs of a minister of the Crown are indemnified ...
Mr Bailey: They argued last night ...
Mr STONE: Oh, look, you are such an irritation. You really are. He asks the question, I try to answer it, and you run interference. It is a great team effort over there. Obviously, no one is in charge.
Mr Coulter: Smokey and the Bandit.
Mr STONE: Yes. That is a good comparison.
The member is labouring on about an action dating from October 1990. It is now May 1996. He is talking about past history. He would have a basis for complaint if there were a whole raft of these actions, if all ministers were having costs indemnified because somehow this was an attempt by this government - and the member used the words last night - to 'silence critics'. There is a big difference between the way that Bjelke-Petersen operated, which was to silence critics, as opposed to what has happened with those ministers who have sought to be indemnified because of cruel and malicious defamations that have been proven to be untrue.
Mr Stirling: He lost.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Once someone yells out, 'He lost', the rest of you jump in like parrots. You do not know.
Mr Stirling: That was what he said.
Mr STONE: He did not.
Last night the member for MacDonnell got to his feet - and I admire him in that he is halfway there - and said: 'I regret what I did'.
Mr Bell: Qualify that. Go on.
Page 1373
Mr STONE: I give you credit for it. You said: 'I regret it'. That in itself would indicate that the minister was entitled absolutely to have his costs indemnified. He obtained his apologies and retractions ...
Mr Bell: He did not.
Mr STONE: He received them from the people who counted - the people who were prepared to concede that Daryl Manzie, the Attorney-General, had not done the things that he had been accused of doing. There was a recognition that the cruel defamations and slanders that were made against him were false and malicious.
That is never to be confused with a minister who may say that he is upset about members opposite being very critical of him. Let me make it very clear that the government will never support the indemnification of costs for such a person. I am trying to think whether anyone has cleared the hurdle since I have been Chief Minister. I take the view that you have to be pretty robust in this forum. People will say all kinds of terrible things about you. The member for Wanguri is forever showering me with compliments. I cop it because I think his opinion on everything is fairly inconsequential.
When ministers of the Crown or public servants around this country are subjected to cruel, malicious, unfounded and hurtful allegations that turn out to be untrue, I do not know what range of assistance is provided, but I know that there is a range of assistance.
Mr Bell: Zero.
Mr STONE: I am not convinced that you are right about that. If anything, the Territory government might have got itself into trouble because it is so transparent about it.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr STONE: You can laugh. You placed a written question on notice to me and I gave you the answer, chapter and verse. I did not try to hide the answer in any way. I did not put it in the bottom drawer because it was all a bit too hard. I knew the debate was coming on and I led with my chin. I provided all the detail that you sought. That is open, transparent government. You are probably obtaining a much franker answer in the Territory than you would be able to obtain in a few of the states or from the Commonwealth. You may shake your head, but you cannot have it both ways.
Mr Bell: They are corrupt payments.
Mr STONE: The indemnification of a minister or a public servant is corrupt?
Mr Bell: Giving him the opportunity to earn a private benefit by payments to a private solicitor.
Mr STONE: It is absolutely extraordinary that you should make that allegation. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition was prattling on about a scenario whereby a minister has to stand outside the door of the Cabinet room while his mates decide whether to give him a bag
Page 1374
of money. Has anyone ever heard so much tripe in all their life? When legal costs are indemnified, the person is not given a bag of money. Certain of the legal costs are met, not all of them.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr STONE: I know what is driving you. I know where you are coming from. You are in the middle of one of these defamation actions. You are trying to put the focus on it. You are shaking your shoulders. There is a basic rule in life which is that you should be responsible for your own actions. You have never exercised any personal responsibility for anything. I am sure no one will be owning up to responsibility for you.
Page 1375
Page 1372
defamation actions. Will the Chief Minister admit that, contrary to those statements by the Attorney-General, no ministers in South Australia or Western Australia have been funded with public moneys to launch private defamation proceedings? If so, does he admit therefore that his is now the only government in Australia that, as a matter of policy and in contravention of the recommendations of the Fitzgerald royal commission, provides this unaccounted private benefit to its ministers?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I do not know what a private defamation action is. I know what a defamation action is. However, there is nothing private about it. When the costs of a minister of the Crown are indemnified ...
Mr Bailey: They argued last night ...
Mr STONE: Oh, look, you are such an irritation. You really are. He asks the question, I try to answer it, and you run interference. It is a great team effort over there. Obviously, no one is in charge.
Mr Coulter: Smokey and the Bandit.
Mr STONE: Yes. That is a good comparison.
The member is labouring on about an action dating from October 1990. It is now May 1996. He is talking about past history. He would have a basis for complaint if there were a whole raft of these actions, if all ministers were having costs indemnified because somehow this was an attempt by this government - and the member used the words last night - to 'silence critics'. There is a big difference between the way that Bjelke-Petersen operated, which was to silence critics, as opposed to what has happened with those ministers who have sought to be indemnified because of cruel and malicious defamations that have been proven to be untrue.
Mr Stirling: He lost.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Once someone yells out, 'He lost', the rest of you jump in like parrots. You do not know.
Mr Stirling: That was what he said.
Mr STONE: He did not.
Last night the member for MacDonnell got to his feet - and I admire him in that he is halfway there - and said: 'I regret what I did'.
Mr Bell: Qualify that. Go on.
Page 1373
Mr STONE: I give you credit for it. You said: 'I regret it'. That in itself would indicate that the minister was entitled absolutely to have his costs indemnified. He obtained his apologies and retractions ...
Mr Bell: He did not.
Mr STONE: He received them from the people who counted - the people who were prepared to concede that Daryl Manzie, the Attorney-General, had not done the things that he had been accused of doing. There was a recognition that the cruel defamations and slanders that were made against him were false and malicious.
That is never to be confused with a minister who may say that he is upset about members opposite being very critical of him. Let me make it very clear that the government will never support the indemnification of costs for such a person. I am trying to think whether anyone has cleared the hurdle since I have been Chief Minister. I take the view that you have to be pretty robust in this forum. People will say all kinds of terrible things about you. The member for Wanguri is forever showering me with compliments. I cop it because I think his opinion on everything is fairly inconsequential.
When ministers of the Crown or public servants around this country are subjected to cruel, malicious, unfounded and hurtful allegations that turn out to be untrue, I do not know what range of assistance is provided, but I know that there is a range of assistance.
Mr Bell: Zero.
Mr STONE: I am not convinced that you are right about that. If anything, the Territory government might have got itself into trouble because it is so transparent about it.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr STONE: You can laugh. You placed a written question on notice to me and I gave you the answer, chapter and verse. I did not try to hide the answer in any way. I did not put it in the bottom drawer because it was all a bit too hard. I knew the debate was coming on and I led with my chin. I provided all the detail that you sought. That is open, transparent government. You are probably obtaining a much franker answer in the Territory than you would be able to obtain in a few of the states or from the Commonwealth. You may shake your head, but you cannot have it both ways.
Mr Bell: They are corrupt payments.
Mr STONE: The indemnification of a minister or a public servant is corrupt?
Mr Bell: Giving him the opportunity to earn a private benefit by payments to a private solicitor.
Mr STONE: It is absolutely extraordinary that you should make that allegation. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition was prattling on about a scenario whereby a minister has to stand outside the door of the Cabinet room while his mates decide whether to give him a bag
Page 1374
of money. Has anyone ever heard so much tripe in all their life? When legal costs are indemnified, the person is not given a bag of money. Certain of the legal costs are met, not all of them.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr STONE: I know what is driving you. I know where you are coming from. You are in the middle of one of these defamation actions. You are trying to put the focus on it. You are shaking your shoulders. There is a basic rule in life which is that you should be responsible for your own actions. You have never exercised any personal responsibility for anything. I am sure no one will be owning up to responsibility for you.
Page 1375
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016