Mrs BRAHAM - 1997-04-23
Members may recall that, in Question Time yesterday, the member for Wanguri tabled 2 letters, one from the Auditor-General and one from the Commissioner of Police. He implied that somehow or other I had directed the Commissioner of Police. I noticed on the ABC television news last night that the member for Wanguri has demanded that the Territory's Commissioner of Police explain the letter the member tabled, from the commissioner, which he claims contradicts the one from the Auditor-General. Given the Labor Party's track record of unreliability in providing full facts when members table documents in the House, has the Chief Minister any new information in relation to the commissioner's letter?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have some new information, as does the member for Wanguri. If I were one of the journalists who interviewed him yesterday and fell for it, I would be pretty unhappy because the member for Wanguri told only half the story. He was in receipt of information that he withheld deliberately and did not pass on to media representatives who interviewed him on the issue. I suppose that we should not be surprised by that because the opposite side has a track record of doctoring documents and fiddling with the truth.
Mr Bailey: Are you suggesting that I changed them at all?
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri interjects yet again. If he is nervous about this, he ought to be. However, we had the ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Wanguri that he has been warned. If he speaks over the top of me, he will go.
Mr STONE: We have seen the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber with a health department memorandum which she had doctored. She deliberately ...
Mr Stirling: You did the same thing yourself 2 days later.
Page 2035
Mr STONE: You can laugh. She whited out ...
Mr Stirling: Two days later, you did exactly the same thing.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: He cannot help himself either.
The Leader of the Opposition had doctored the memorandum from the Department of Health and, in particular, had taken out the hand-written notes which explained what the memorandum was all about. We then heard her verballing the Commissioner of Police after she had received a confidential briefing. She may laugh but, if she believes for one moment that she has the confidence of the commissioner ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! We have already had a 15-minute answer from the Chief Minister in response to the first question this morning. He has started now to give us his version of history, but he is not answering the question that was put to him by the member for Braitling.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I expect that the Chief Minister will get to the answer.
Mr STONE: I am just about there. It is important that Territorians listening to this broadcast know that the Labor Party mob sitting opposite have priors for this sort of activity. Let me come now to the member for Wanguri. Members will recall that he came in here with great drama. Someone had sent him a secret tape. This tape was supposed to demonstrate that the federal member, Hon Nick Dondas, had somehow used certain information for the purpose of his election campaign. What the member did not table, of course, was the transcript of the tape. Had we seen the transcript when he produced the tape, we would have come to the immediate realisation that there was no truth in it.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Arnhem interjects. He has priors too.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! By saying that, if I had tabled the transcript of the tape, the truth would have been known, the Chief Minister has implied that I lied. In effect, he said that I misled the parliament in relation to the tape. I ask him to withdraw the statement that I lied.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not detect a statement about your lying. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that, if the Chief Minister believes you have misled the House in some way, he should make that point.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! He can only say that I have misled the parliament by way of a substantive motion. That is the standing order.
Page 2036
Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. However, I believe that, in answering this question, the Chief Minister has not gone beyond the bounds of standing orders at this stage.
Mr STONE: I can understand why the member for Wanguri would like to disrupt my answer. He should be embarrassed by what I am about to reveal.
Coming back to the member for Arnhem, he was intimately involved in the allegation that files had gone missing when they were found in a Katherine pub. He obfuscated and made out that they had been stolen when, in fact, they had been left there by campaign workers.
A member interjecting.
Mr STONE: You were not in the pub, but your campaign workers got on the booze and left the files lying in the hotel. You peddled the story that there had been a break-in at your electoral office.
Members opposite all have priors for coming in here and not telling the whole story. Yesterday, the member for Wanguri spoke in here with great fanfare. He went on television last night and talked about a letter that he received from the Commissioner of Police on 3 April. What he did not tell this House, what he did not tell Territorians and what he withheld from the media was that he had received a letter dated 14 April. He nods his head. He has to be asked why he deliberately withheld that information, and why did he not table that letter. I will read that letter for the benefit of Territorians. It is from the Commissioner of Police himself and is dated 14 April:
I refer to previous correspondence to you of 3 April 1997, concerning the allocation of grants to the North
Australian Film Corporation, and to your telephone call of 7 April 1997 in which you raised with me particular
concerns.
The use of the word `investigate' in the earlier correspondence may have been somewhat inadvertent.
However, further discussions have now taken place with the Auditor-General and I am satisfied that, unless
more information comes to hand, this is a matter which does not require further police attention.
Yours sincerely,
Brian C. Bates,
Commissioner of Police.
Why did you withhold that letter from the parliament? Why didn't you tell the media about that letter? Why did you deliberately set about telling people only half the story? You have a great deal to answer for. This is typical of the tactics that you use, coming into this Chamber and only ever telling half the story.
Page 2037
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have some new information, as does the member for Wanguri. If I were one of the journalists who interviewed him yesterday and fell for it, I would be pretty unhappy because the member for Wanguri told only half the story. He was in receipt of information that he withheld deliberately and did not pass on to media representatives who interviewed him on the issue. I suppose that we should not be surprised by that because the opposite side has a track record of doctoring documents and fiddling with the truth.
Mr Bailey: Are you suggesting that I changed them at all?
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri interjects yet again. If he is nervous about this, he ought to be. However, we had the ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Wanguri that he has been warned. If he speaks over the top of me, he will go.
Mr STONE: We have seen the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber with a health department memorandum which she had doctored. She deliberately ...
Mr Stirling: You did the same thing yourself 2 days later.
Page 2035
Mr STONE: You can laugh. She whited out ...
Mr Stirling: Two days later, you did exactly the same thing.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: He cannot help himself either.
The Leader of the Opposition had doctored the memorandum from the Department of Health and, in particular, had taken out the hand-written notes which explained what the memorandum was all about. We then heard her verballing the Commissioner of Police after she had received a confidential briefing. She may laugh but, if she believes for one moment that she has the confidence of the commissioner ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker! We have already had a 15-minute answer from the Chief Minister in response to the first question this morning. He has started now to give us his version of history, but he is not answering the question that was put to him by the member for Braitling.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I expect that the Chief Minister will get to the answer.
Mr STONE: I am just about there. It is important that Territorians listening to this broadcast know that the Labor Party mob sitting opposite have priors for this sort of activity. Let me come now to the member for Wanguri. Members will recall that he came in here with great drama. Someone had sent him a secret tape. This tape was supposed to demonstrate that the federal member, Hon Nick Dondas, had somehow used certain information for the purpose of his election campaign. What the member did not table, of course, was the transcript of the tape. Had we seen the transcript when he produced the tape, we would have come to the immediate realisation that there was no truth in it.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Arnhem interjects. He has priors too.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! By saying that, if I had tabled the transcript of the tape, the truth would have been known, the Chief Minister has implied that I lied. In effect, he said that I misled the parliament in relation to the tape. I ask him to withdraw the statement that I lied.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not detect a statement about your lying. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that, if the Chief Minister believes you have misled the House in some way, he should make that point.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! He can only say that I have misled the parliament by way of a substantive motion. That is the standing order.
Page 2036
Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. However, I believe that, in answering this question, the Chief Minister has not gone beyond the bounds of standing orders at this stage.
Mr STONE: I can understand why the member for Wanguri would like to disrupt my answer. He should be embarrassed by what I am about to reveal.
Coming back to the member for Arnhem, he was intimately involved in the allegation that files had gone missing when they were found in a Katherine pub. He obfuscated and made out that they had been stolen when, in fact, they had been left there by campaign workers.
A member interjecting.
Mr STONE: You were not in the pub, but your campaign workers got on the booze and left the files lying in the hotel. You peddled the story that there had been a break-in at your electoral office.
Members opposite all have priors for coming in here and not telling the whole story. Yesterday, the member for Wanguri spoke in here with great fanfare. He went on television last night and talked about a letter that he received from the Commissioner of Police on 3 April. What he did not tell this House, what he did not tell Territorians and what he withheld from the media was that he had received a letter dated 14 April. He nods his head. He has to be asked why he deliberately withheld that information, and why did he not table that letter. I will read that letter for the benefit of Territorians. It is from the Commissioner of Police himself and is dated 14 April:
I refer to previous correspondence to you of 3 April 1997, concerning the allocation of grants to the North
Australian Film Corporation, and to your telephone call of 7 April 1997 in which you raised with me particular
concerns.
The use of the word `investigate' in the earlier correspondence may have been somewhat inadvertent.
However, further discussions have now taken place with the Auditor-General and I am satisfied that, unless
more information comes to hand, this is a matter which does not require further police attention.
Yours sincerely,
Brian C. Bates,
Commissioner of Police.
Why did you withhold that letter from the parliament? Why didn't you tell the media about that letter? Why did you deliberately set about telling people only half the story? You have a great deal to answer for. This is typical of the tactics that you use, coming into this Chamber and only ever telling half the story.
Page 2037
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016