Mr BAILEY - 1994-08-24
The failure of the Department of Law to advise the Department of Education on the dangers of BCF fire extinguishers led to the death of a young Territorian. The Ombudsman has now found the department's actions to be unreasonable. Will the Attorney-General advise whether a departmental inquiry was conducted into this bungle and, if so, what the results of that inquiry were?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, as I explained to the Assembly last night, the member for Wanguri has jumped off the plank with both feet whilst blindfolded. His first assumption, that the
Page 69
Department of Law was responsible for reporting to the Department of Education in relation to the unfortunate death of the Halliday person ...
Mr EDE: You admit that now?
Mr FINCH: This is the member's accusation, which is totally baseless. It was a factual nonsense from the start.
Mr Bailey: Why?
Mr FINCH: Because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that, on 5 March 1990, the Department of Law had a responsibility in regard to reporting such matters ...
Mr Bailey: The Chief Minister came into this House in February 1991 and told us that that was what it did.
Mr FINCH: That is a separate issue, and I will reply to that shortly.
To come back to the first issue, if the member for Wanguri himself has one shred of evidence or has had evidence made available to him by the Ombudsman, that made that a direct requirement of the Department of Law at 5 March 1990 when the findings of the Cole inquiry was handed down, then he should come forward with it. However, he should not jump off the bridge without even half-thinking about it because, quite candidly, the Department of Law has contested that part of the Ombudsman's inquiry. That inquiry was brought forward by the member for Wanguri, and was sought to be brought forward long before the coroner had even finished his work.
On the subject of the coroner, the totally inappropriate and outrageous accusations made by the member for Wanguri last night in this Assembly cover him in shame. Not only has he attempted to cast a slur on ...
Mr Bell: Stop blustering! You will have another heart attack, Fred.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: Was there an inquiry or wasn't there an inquiry, and what were the results?
Mr FINCH: This is a rather serious matter, for the benefit of the member for MacDonnell ...
Mr Bell: Yes, it is. When a child dies at a Darwin High School, it is everybody's problem.
Mr FINCH: It was a very sad occurrence, and nobody has denied that. Quite significant and drastic action has been taken since that time. However, it is wrong to attempt to tie in with that the death of an Aboriginal person in custody where the situation prevails, if you like, for a propensity for getting into mischief, through a coroner's finding on 5 March 1990, when there was not one shred of evidence at that time to support such a proposition.
Page 70
Certainly, the Department of Education acknowledges that, at some time afterwards, and following the lead of police in regard to their specific responsibilities ...
Mr Bailey: The Department of Transport and Works refused to give any evidence on BCF extinguishers in schools.
Mr FINCH: Just hang on a second.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: Incidentally, I am quite unlikely to have a heart seizure in this place even as, of course, the member for Wanguri is unlikely ever to have a brain seizure.
Let us follow this through logically, clearly and carefully. That is very important because the accusation made as a statement by the member for Wanguri in opening his question - that the Department of Law had caused the death of the Halliday lad - is outrageous. Pursuit of public servants or of a department without a shred of evidence is really the pits.
Mr Bailey: Yes, it is your government and the minister who are responsible.
Mr FINCH: It is really the pits, and the way that you brought the coroner into it last night was really the pits as well. There is no tie and no link to support it.
As for the accusation that the Chief Minister misled the House, that is totally incorrect. In February 1991, almost a year after the Department of Law acknowledged that it did have a role to play - and the extent of that role is to be argued and discussed at another time, because I do not want to drag this response out at the moment - in relation to whether it had a role at that time or not, the Ombudsman was called in by the member for Wanguri before the coroner had even finished his inquiry.
The member claimed last night that we gagged his debate in this House. The absurdity of his calling for this parliament to seek an inquiry by the Ombudsman before the coroner had finished his work, or even at all, is a nonsense, and he knows it. Any citizen can call for an inquiry by the Ombudsman. However, if the honourable member has information that would put the coroner's findings in doubt, as he suggests that he has, then let him trot across the road to the Supreme Court. It is very easy. He may do it via me if he likes ...
Mr Bailey: That is what we are here for.
Mr FINCH: As a citizen, you have that right under the act. You can wander across to the Supreme Court and put in an application for a coronial inquiry to be reopened.
Mr Bailey: Are you going to fund it?
Mr FINCH: If the Supreme Court suggests that the coroner's inquiry should be reopened, of course it is funded. It is very simple. Put up or shut up. I know you were put off your game because the hairdresser had not quite finished the job on you at the time of the last coronial inquiry.
Page 71
Mr Bell: You are really going to the bottom of the barrel now, aren't you?
Mr FINCH: This is the whole point. He has had the opportunity to put his case, not only in front of the coronial inquiry ...
Mr Bell: You know your partner blew it and you are not prepared to own up.
Mr FINCH: He has had an opportunity to put his case to the Ombudsman over 2 years of hearings and ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable minister will resume his seat. I have had just about as much as I can take of the member for Wanguri in any one morning. Unless he maintains some silence during Question Time, I will warn him. The honourable minister.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri has demonstrated nothing to this House or to the public other than his absolute stupidity in this matter. He ought to take the opportunity to apologise to the public servants involved, to the coroner and, I suggest, to the Halliday family and their friends for his nonsensical and totally inappropriate actions of recent times.
Page 72
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, as I explained to the Assembly last night, the member for Wanguri has jumped off the plank with both feet whilst blindfolded. His first assumption, that the
Page 69
Department of Law was responsible for reporting to the Department of Education in relation to the unfortunate death of the Halliday person ...
Mr EDE: You admit that now?
Mr FINCH: This is the member's accusation, which is totally baseless. It was a factual nonsense from the start.
Mr Bailey: Why?
Mr FINCH: Because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that, on 5 March 1990, the Department of Law had a responsibility in regard to reporting such matters ...
Mr Bailey: The Chief Minister came into this House in February 1991 and told us that that was what it did.
Mr FINCH: That is a separate issue, and I will reply to that shortly.
To come back to the first issue, if the member for Wanguri himself has one shred of evidence or has had evidence made available to him by the Ombudsman, that made that a direct requirement of the Department of Law at 5 March 1990 when the findings of the Cole inquiry was handed down, then he should come forward with it. However, he should not jump off the bridge without even half-thinking about it because, quite candidly, the Department of Law has contested that part of the Ombudsman's inquiry. That inquiry was brought forward by the member for Wanguri, and was sought to be brought forward long before the coroner had even finished his work.
On the subject of the coroner, the totally inappropriate and outrageous accusations made by the member for Wanguri last night in this Assembly cover him in shame. Not only has he attempted to cast a slur on ...
Mr Bell: Stop blustering! You will have another heart attack, Fred.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: Was there an inquiry or wasn't there an inquiry, and what were the results?
Mr FINCH: This is a rather serious matter, for the benefit of the member for MacDonnell ...
Mr Bell: Yes, it is. When a child dies at a Darwin High School, it is everybody's problem.
Mr FINCH: It was a very sad occurrence, and nobody has denied that. Quite significant and drastic action has been taken since that time. However, it is wrong to attempt to tie in with that the death of an Aboriginal person in custody where the situation prevails, if you like, for a propensity for getting into mischief, through a coroner's finding on 5 March 1990, when there was not one shred of evidence at that time to support such a proposition.
Page 70
Certainly, the Department of Education acknowledges that, at some time afterwards, and following the lead of police in regard to their specific responsibilities ...
Mr Bailey: The Department of Transport and Works refused to give any evidence on BCF extinguishers in schools.
Mr FINCH: Just hang on a second.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: Incidentally, I am quite unlikely to have a heart seizure in this place even as, of course, the member for Wanguri is unlikely ever to have a brain seizure.
Let us follow this through logically, clearly and carefully. That is very important because the accusation made as a statement by the member for Wanguri in opening his question - that the Department of Law had caused the death of the Halliday lad - is outrageous. Pursuit of public servants or of a department without a shred of evidence is really the pits.
Mr Bailey: Yes, it is your government and the minister who are responsible.
Mr FINCH: It is really the pits, and the way that you brought the coroner into it last night was really the pits as well. There is no tie and no link to support it.
As for the accusation that the Chief Minister misled the House, that is totally incorrect. In February 1991, almost a year after the Department of Law acknowledged that it did have a role to play - and the extent of that role is to be argued and discussed at another time, because I do not want to drag this response out at the moment - in relation to whether it had a role at that time or not, the Ombudsman was called in by the member for Wanguri before the coroner had even finished his inquiry.
The member claimed last night that we gagged his debate in this House. The absurdity of his calling for this parliament to seek an inquiry by the Ombudsman before the coroner had finished his work, or even at all, is a nonsense, and he knows it. Any citizen can call for an inquiry by the Ombudsman. However, if the honourable member has information that would put the coroner's findings in doubt, as he suggests that he has, then let him trot across the road to the Supreme Court. It is very easy. He may do it via me if he likes ...
Mr Bailey: That is what we are here for.
Mr FINCH: As a citizen, you have that right under the act. You can wander across to the Supreme Court and put in an application for a coronial inquiry to be reopened.
Mr Bailey: Are you going to fund it?
Mr FINCH: If the Supreme Court suggests that the coroner's inquiry should be reopened, of course it is funded. It is very simple. Put up or shut up. I know you were put off your game because the hairdresser had not quite finished the job on you at the time of the last coronial inquiry.
Page 71
Mr Bell: You are really going to the bottom of the barrel now, aren't you?
Mr FINCH: This is the whole point. He has had the opportunity to put his case, not only in front of the coronial inquiry ...
Mr Bell: You know your partner blew it and you are not prepared to own up.
Mr FINCH: He has had an opportunity to put his case to the Ombudsman over 2 years of hearings and ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable minister will resume his seat. I have had just about as much as I can take of the member for Wanguri in any one morning. Unless he maintains some silence during Question Time, I will warn him. The honourable minister.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri has demonstrated nothing to this House or to the public other than his absolute stupidity in this matter. He ought to take the opportunity to apologise to the public servants involved, to the coroner and, I suggest, to the Halliday family and their friends for his nonsensical and totally inappropriate actions of recent times.
Page 72
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016