HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-10-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Personal Explanation

Darley, Hon. J.A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:22): As indicated last week, I seek leave to make a further personal explanation, notice of which was given last week, to speak in more detail on the unprecedented personal attack made on me and my character in this place by Mr Darley.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Mr President, at the conclusion, I will seek your guidance on the most appropriate course of action from here. While I do not intend, at this stage, to go into specific detail of all the allegations levelled against me—they do not deserve the dignity or the oxygen of a response—I will say this: I believe that most people in this chamber will agree with me when I say that everyone in this place is in an extremely privileged position. It is bestowed on very few people. Like you, Mr President, and others in this chamber, I am humbled by my position and take that responsibility extremely seriously.

My overriding duty as a legislative councillor is to this parliament and specifically to this chamber. With such privilege also comes great responsibility and most of us accept that responsibility with the utmost respect of the traditions of parliament. There was absolutely nothing honourable or even half decent in respect to what happened in this place last week. The completely untrue and utterly devastating character assassination of me that Mr Darley made under the protection of parliamentary privilege is, as I said, unprecedented in this place. Why he chose that course of action, thereby disrespecting this chamber, speaks volumes.

It is absolutely true that I did visit Mr Darley's wife to talk about her husband—I never shied away from that fact. Nor was this a rarity. Mrs Darley and I shared a loyal relationship and I have visited the Darley home on more occasions than I can recall. For a long time, Mr Darley has enjoyed and, indeed, hidden behind a certain level of protection afforded to him by many.

As I went into great detail to explain to Mrs Darley on the day in question, my visit was out of genuine concern for her husband's health and wellbeing. Over the course of several months leading up to my visit to his wife, Mr Darley's mental aptitude appeared to be waning. That was not just my view and mine alone, but that of those who work closely with him. I am prepared to go into specifics and details of times and meetings when those concerns were highlighted, and highlighted in writing if necessary. I will not at this point, and I will explain my reasons for that later.

On the day in question, I gave Mrs Darley an honest and frank view of the concerns being raised about her husband, not only by me but by those around him and those who worked closely with him. To be clear, this was not just limited to staff and/or members of his own party, but extended outside of their respective offices. As you would expect, Mrs Darley was overwhelmed by what I told her. It was an emotional time for both of us, a day I will never forget. As I explicitly repeated numerous times on the day to Mrs Darley, I knew that Mr Darley would be unhappy once he had knowledge of my meeting with his wife.

Mr Darley claims that these matters were not raised with him prior to my meeting with his wife. With respect, nothing could be further from the truth, and he knows it. Fortunately for me, the concerns over his deteriorating behaviour were the subject of many discussions with his peers, with his personal staff and with him. The warning signs were there for all in the team that the current working environment was becoming increasingly unworkable and untenable, given Mr Darley's behaviour, and that it was not going to end well for anybody.

I was working in Canberra when breaking point finally arrived. So genuine were my concerns for Mr Darley, an indication of my close relationship with him at the time, that I made the decision to seek a leave of absence from my job in Canberra to fly back to Adelaide and, in a last-ditch effort, reach out to his wife. I have always known Mrs Darley to be a compassionate and level-headed person, and took the drastic step to approach her in the hope that her influence over her husband would make him see sense.

In an effort to make her appreciate that this was not motivated by self-interest, I suggested to Mrs Darley that Mr Darley could go to visit his doctor to ascertain whether he had any underlying health issues responsible for his changing behaviour. I said to Mrs Darley that if that was not the case then clearly it was more about personalities at play and that we would have to deal with that if that was indeed the case.

Far from his allegations of self-interest on my behalf, I made it very clear—abundantly clear—to Mrs Darley that I had little to gain personally if Mr Darley left parliament. My position as a candidate had already been determined internally by our party. Had Mr Darley resigned or retired from this place, I would have been expected to step into a vacant position and thus take on a lesser term in this place.

To this day, I do not shy away from the growing concerns I and others had about Mr Darley's health and wellbeing. As he pointed out last week, and as many people in this place know, I worked with him over many, many years as one of his closest confidants. That does not mean I agreed with everything he did and said. To suggest that I did not raise this issue with him personally is both inaccurate and absolutely untrue, and those close to him today and previously know that.

I also do not shy away from the fact that it was my view, and the view of others, that our party thought that Mr Darley ought to stand down. This had nothing to do with him personally or with any personal gain on my behalf, but everything to do with what his close work colleagues viewed as increasingly erratic and unpredictable behaviour, with his increasing forgetfulness and his strong denial of conversations ever taking place. It occurred not only with me but with many of our work colleagues and other political acquaintances, a number of whom have reached out to me in support since his outburst.

I chose to reach out to Mrs Darley as a last resort, due to the fact that there was absolutely no reasoning with Mr Darley himself. I tried, and I tried in vain. Despite Mr Darley's claims that I had left his employ and was working for another politician, painting a picture that I was somewhat isolated from the party and from his personal work activities, that is also completely untrue. Again, he knows that, and my concerns for his wellbeing stem back well before the time that I was working for another member of our party.

When Mr Darley found out about the meeting at the time—and I knew he would—I explained my reasons for doing so. While he was disappointed that I had taken it upon myself to visit Mrs Darley, he was sympathetic when I explained my reasoning and understood that reasoning.

I was also deeply offended—deeply offended—when Mr Darley used parliamentary privilege to raise a deeply personal matter pertaining to issues of a financial loan. Despite the fact that this has absolutely no correlation with the issue he raised in the context of a bill before this house, Mr Darley went into some detail to outline matters that are deeply personal to me and to my entire family and matters that he had absolutely no knowledge about in detail.

I am not going to dignify those comments with a detailed response in relation to this matter other than to say that, as those who know me well would attest, I would move heaven and earth to protect my family. There is no shame in that for me. The very fact that Mr Darley continues to this day to politicise this issue, despite him knowing full well it is of a very private and sensitive nature, and despite him knowing full well that this matter has been put to bed, speaks volumes.

Mr Darley might anger me with his actions—and, believe me, he has angered me—but he does not scare me and he does not intimidate me and he cannot hurt me. On the contrary, given his actions, I pity him. As many in this place know, I worked with Mr Darley for a number of years. I know only too well how he conducts himself, and through you, Mr President, I say to Mr Darley and to those around him, who clearly have their own agenda, that since coming to this place I decided to draw a line in the sand and get on with my very important work as a member of this place and the great responsibility that comes with it.

That said, I cannot accept the sort of behaviour and abuse of privilege any further. I cannot accept Mr Darley's continual defamatory comments against me to others inside this place and outside this place. I know from the very people he speaks to that that is happening. I cannot accept Mr Darley's continual mocking of me when I rise in this chamber to speak on issues of importance. And, Mr President, I remind you that on the day prior to Mr Darley making his speech I approached you with my concerns regarding that behaviour.

Mr Darley might not like the fact that I have been elected to this place, but he will treat me with the courtesy and respect that I deserve not only as a member of this chamber but, above all, as a decent human being. I cannot accept anything less. If Mr Darley and those around him do not abstain from their agenda, I will no longer afford him the level of protection he has hidden behind thus far. He is on notice.

I turn now to standing order 193, which reads as follows:

The use of objectionable or offensive words shall be considered highly disorderly; and no injurious reflections shall be permitted upon the Governor or the Parliament of this State, or of the Commonwealth, or any Member thereof, nor upon any of the Judges or Courts of Law, unless it be upon a specific charge on a substantive Motion after Notice.

I therefore request that Mr Darley withdraw his comments in relation to his injurious reflections on me. When I last spoke on this matter I indicated that I would seek leave to have the matter referred to a privileges committee. Whilst I stand behind that decision, I understand the priority with which this matter would have to be dealt with and the position in which it would place not only my colleagues and those close to me but also Mr Darley and his family.

I do not want to give this unsavoury matter any more oxygen than it deserves. On that note, I apologise unreservedly for wasting this chamber's valuable time with this matter. I apologise because that is exactly what it is: it is a waste of time that detracts from the work of this chamber and the issues that we are required to debate and determine in this place. It is clear to me that Mr Darley has abused his position in this place and breached standing order 193 by using objectionable or offensive language and making injurious reflections about me.

As a member of this place, I have sought the appropriate advice and I believe it is appropriate to request that Mr Darley withdraw his comments. I do not want his apology, frankly, but I do expect that I have the right to request that he withdraw his comments. If Mr Darley refuses, I reserve the right to pursue this matter further.

If there is one positive, just one positive to come out of all of this unparliamentary display from Mr Darley, it is the support that I have received from people far and wide. This place can be extraordinarily lonely so I am extremely grateful to members of this chamber and the other place, and to others, who have reached out to me with their words of support.

The PRESIDENT (14:35): The Hon. Mr Darley, I invite you to withdraw.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:36): Thank you, Mr President. Let me say I stand by my account of the events that I have described in my contribution to the bill. Because I have been asked by you to withdraw, I withdraw any injurious reflection that the member may have interpreted from the tone I used.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT