Mr SETTER - 1994-08-25
In this House on Tuesday night, the member for Wanguri cast aspersions on the Departments of Education and Law. He said that they had been obstructionist in an inquiry by the Ombudsman into the death of a student following the inhalation of the fumes of a BCF fire
Page 82
extinguisher. Will the Attorney-General confirm whether the 2 departments obstructed the Ombudsman as the member stated?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri continues to dig himself deeper into the mire. When one considers the kind of inane interjections and comments that he makes in this House combined with his very fertile imagination, it is no wonder that that dangerous cocktail keeps getting him into strife.
Yesterday, the member for Wanguri made a very specific and serious accusation in this House in regard to the Department of Law, which I will quote for the record:
The failure of the Department of Law to advise the Department of Education of the dangers of BCF fire extinguishers led to the death of a young Territorian.
Mr Bailey: Yes.
Mr FINCH: The honourable member says 'Yes'. It was a prepared, written accusation delivered in a very serious manner in this House. He was not equivocal. He did not say 'may have led to' or even `contributed to', but 'led to'. The member nods, and I will have that recorded in Hansard too. That is a very serious accusation. It is that kind of basis ...
Mr Bailey: It is on that kind of basis that you gagged the debate on the issue yesterday.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: That is how much you care about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: That issue does follow immediately from the member's other outrageous accusations in relation to the coroner's findings in this matter wherein he suggested that his information was not taken into account by the coroner and that the coroner's findings were, therefore, less than adequate. The only things that I have heard the member refer to were a copy of the Parliamentary Record, relating to what the Chief Minister had said - and, to say the least, the implications of that are very tenuous in relation to responsibility - and a copy of a previous coronial finding which it would not be exactly difficult for the coroner to lay his hands on. They are the only 2 papers that the honourable ...
Mr Bailey: The coronial papers were actually given.
Mr FINCH: They were?
Mr Bailey: I believe that there were other papers given.
Mr FINCH: That you had?
Page 83
Mr Bailey: Yes, on BCF and the general dangers.
Mr FINCH: To conclude that point very quickly, I suggest that the honourable member table any papers that either he put to counsel assisting the coroner ...
Mr Bailey: Maybe you should have counsel assisting the inquiry present them to you to give the opportunity for him to make it quite clear that he did give them to the Coroner.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister is answering a question.
Mr FINCH: Of course, it is inappropriate for me to seek papers from the coroner. This is an argument that we had yesterday ...
Mr Ede: Hang on, it is all right to obtain them from the DPP!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: What is very simple is for the member to table in this parliament the papers that he put to counsel assisting the coroner and all additional papers that he may feel would warrant taking this matter to the Supreme Court or would justify him taking to the Supreme Court a suggestion that the coronial inquiry be reopened. He can do that and then we can all judge whether there is any substance to his concerns. It is easy.
Another thing that got up my nose was his comment in the adjournment debate the other night - and this is certainly a quote from the rushes which are unedited to this time, but it was heard very clearly by myself - when he said: 'In correspondence to me' - that is, the member for Wanguri - 'he' - that is, the Ombudsman - 'expressed concern that both the Department of Education and the Department of Law have been obstructionists in supplying that information'. I thought at the time that that was a rather peculiar and very curious statement to be made by the honourable member. Firstly, both of those departments reject having been approached either in writing or verbally by the Ombudsman with the comment that they were being obstructionist.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! You will recall that yesterday the minister gagged a debate on this subject. It is really an abuse of the standing orders of the parliament to use Question Time to debate a matter like this - a crucial situation involving school students - without allowing some right of reply from the opposition. This parliament is here for debate.
Mr Stone interjecting.
Mr EDE: In answer to the interjection from the Leader of Government Business, I point out that, when crucial matters such as the death of a high school student require the attention of this parliament, the suspension of standing orders is a form of the House permitted under standing orders. He did not indicate yesterday that he knew too much about them. That process is always available. I suggest that the minister be asked to curtail his answer.
Page 84
Mr PERRON: Speaking to the point of order, from what has been said this morning, I understand that the minister is responding to a matter which was raised after a vote was taken yesterday to cease debate on a certain matter. I understood that the matters referred to were ...
Mr Ede: It was the night before. You are wrong, Marshall.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr PERRON: Mr Speaker, I am told that the adjournment debate that the minister referred to was held on the previous day. In any event, the point I was about to make was not a correct one.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the minister to answer the question as quickly as possible.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, I was curious about this suggestion that the member for Wanguri had been written to by the Ombudsman because neither ministers nor this parliament, to which the Ombudsman is answerable and with which he has direct contact, were aware that any department had been obstructionist. Secondly, given the very high integrity of the Ombudsman, I found it a little strange ...
Mr Bailey: You are the one who came out and said that, when his report ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: We agree on the high integrity of the Ombudsman, and that is appropriate for an officer in a role of that nature. I found it curious that he should write to the member for Wanguri expressing concern about a departmental transgression or even that he would talk to him about it or intimate it. Obviously, I doubt whether such a letter exists. Of his own making, the member for Wanguri might be up to his ears in his own muck. However, in my normal conciliatory way, I will throw him a lifeline. At the end of Question Time, he may make a personal explanation. In making that personal explanation, I challenge him, indeed almost demand of him, to table the letter from the Ombudsman which, as he intimated to this parliament, suggested that 2 departments had been obstructionist. Either he does that or he apologises to this Chamber for misleading the House. He has a very simple choice!
Page 85
Page 82
extinguisher. Will the Attorney-General confirm whether the 2 departments obstructed the Ombudsman as the member stated?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri continues to dig himself deeper into the mire. When one considers the kind of inane interjections and comments that he makes in this House combined with his very fertile imagination, it is no wonder that that dangerous cocktail keeps getting him into strife.
Yesterday, the member for Wanguri made a very specific and serious accusation in this House in regard to the Department of Law, which I will quote for the record:
The failure of the Department of Law to advise the Department of Education of the dangers of BCF fire extinguishers led to the death of a young Territorian.
Mr Bailey: Yes.
Mr FINCH: The honourable member says 'Yes'. It was a prepared, written accusation delivered in a very serious manner in this House. He was not equivocal. He did not say 'may have led to' or even `contributed to', but 'led to'. The member nods, and I will have that recorded in Hansard too. That is a very serious accusation. It is that kind of basis ...
Mr Bailey: It is on that kind of basis that you gagged the debate on the issue yesterday.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey: That is how much you care about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: That issue does follow immediately from the member's other outrageous accusations in relation to the coroner's findings in this matter wherein he suggested that his information was not taken into account by the coroner and that the coroner's findings were, therefore, less than adequate. The only things that I have heard the member refer to were a copy of the Parliamentary Record, relating to what the Chief Minister had said - and, to say the least, the implications of that are very tenuous in relation to responsibility - and a copy of a previous coronial finding which it would not be exactly difficult for the coroner to lay his hands on. They are the only 2 papers that the honourable ...
Mr Bailey: The coronial papers were actually given.
Mr FINCH: They were?
Mr Bailey: I believe that there were other papers given.
Mr FINCH: That you had?
Page 83
Mr Bailey: Yes, on BCF and the general dangers.
Mr FINCH: To conclude that point very quickly, I suggest that the honourable member table any papers that either he put to counsel assisting the coroner ...
Mr Bailey: Maybe you should have counsel assisting the inquiry present them to you to give the opportunity for him to make it quite clear that he did give them to the Coroner.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister is answering a question.
Mr FINCH: Of course, it is inappropriate for me to seek papers from the coroner. This is an argument that we had yesterday ...
Mr Ede: Hang on, it is all right to obtain them from the DPP!
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: What is very simple is for the member to table in this parliament the papers that he put to counsel assisting the coroner and all additional papers that he may feel would warrant taking this matter to the Supreme Court or would justify him taking to the Supreme Court a suggestion that the coronial inquiry be reopened. He can do that and then we can all judge whether there is any substance to his concerns. It is easy.
Another thing that got up my nose was his comment in the adjournment debate the other night - and this is certainly a quote from the rushes which are unedited to this time, but it was heard very clearly by myself - when he said: 'In correspondence to me' - that is, the member for Wanguri - 'he' - that is, the Ombudsman - 'expressed concern that both the Department of Education and the Department of Law have been obstructionists in supplying that information'. I thought at the time that that was a rather peculiar and very curious statement to be made by the honourable member. Firstly, both of those departments reject having been approached either in writing or verbally by the Ombudsman with the comment that they were being obstructionist.
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! You will recall that yesterday the minister gagged a debate on this subject. It is really an abuse of the standing orders of the parliament to use Question Time to debate a matter like this - a crucial situation involving school students - without allowing some right of reply from the opposition. This parliament is here for debate.
Mr Stone interjecting.
Mr EDE: In answer to the interjection from the Leader of Government Business, I point out that, when crucial matters such as the death of a high school student require the attention of this parliament, the suspension of standing orders is a form of the House permitted under standing orders. He did not indicate yesterday that he knew too much about them. That process is always available. I suggest that the minister be asked to curtail his answer.
Page 84
Mr PERRON: Speaking to the point of order, from what has been said this morning, I understand that the minister is responding to a matter which was raised after a vote was taken yesterday to cease debate on a certain matter. I understood that the matters referred to were ...
Mr Ede: It was the night before. You are wrong, Marshall.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr PERRON: Mr Speaker, I am told that the adjournment debate that the minister referred to was held on the previous day. In any event, the point I was about to make was not a correct one.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the minister to answer the question as quickly as possible.
Mr FINCH: Mr Speaker, I was curious about this suggestion that the member for Wanguri had been written to by the Ombudsman because neither ministers nor this parliament, to which the Ombudsman is answerable and with which he has direct contact, were aware that any department had been obstructionist. Secondly, given the very high integrity of the Ombudsman, I found it a little strange ...
Mr Bailey: You are the one who came out and said that, when his report ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: We agree on the high integrity of the Ombudsman, and that is appropriate for an officer in a role of that nature. I found it curious that he should write to the member for Wanguri expressing concern about a departmental transgression or even that he would talk to him about it or intimate it. Obviously, I doubt whether such a letter exists. Of his own making, the member for Wanguri might be up to his ears in his own muck. However, in my normal conciliatory way, I will throw him a lifeline. At the end of Question Time, he may make a personal explanation. In making that personal explanation, I challenge him, indeed almost demand of him, to table the letter from the Ombudsman which, as he intimated to this parliament, suggested that 2 departments had been obstructionist. Either he does that or he apologises to this Chamber for misleading the House. He has a very simple choice!
Page 85
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016