Mr FINCH - 1994-08-23
Mr FINCH (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, early in Question Time, the member for Wanguri put a question to the Chief Minister asking whether he had misled the House in relation to some instructions to departments, in particular the Department of Law, concerning the reporting of coronial findings or appropriate parts thereof to various government departments for their information.
The member for Wanguri made the mistake of walking off the end of the plank whilst blindfolded in regard to his automatic assumption that the findings of the Ombudsman, in regard to an inquiry that the member asked be held, were correct. It is sad to say that at least in regard to one of his findings, the Ombudsman quite obviously and logically was incorrect. In fact, he had made a quantum leap on the basis of the evidence before him and had made some quite incorrect assumptions about the Department of Law's instructions in relation to this matter. There has been considerable correspondence between the Department of Law and the Ombudsman over this issue, and I would suggest that what probably ought to be in place now is an ability, where departments contest findings of the Ombudsman, for the information to be relayed to the interested parties as well as the findings of the Ombudsman himself. In fairness, I think it most important that the views of all are known.
To conclude on this, because it is important, I am more than happy to take on the issue raised by the member for Wanguri. Sadly, he does not appear to be overly interested in the tragedy itself, but is more interested in either the publicity that he is trying to gather around himself or, and I think this is more likely, in pursuing the blood of more public servants. The Ombudsman himself, in the very report that the member tabled today, indicated quite deliberately that it was not appropriate to pursue public servants over this matter. It is the member for Wanguri who has taken it on himself to pursue individual officers of the Department of Law in regard to a matter in which, quite clearly in my belief, they had no role to play at the specific time of the inquiry that he referred to the Ombudsman.
Page 57
The member for Wanguri made the mistake of walking off the end of the plank whilst blindfolded in regard to his automatic assumption that the findings of the Ombudsman, in regard to an inquiry that the member asked be held, were correct. It is sad to say that at least in regard to one of his findings, the Ombudsman quite obviously and logically was incorrect. In fact, he had made a quantum leap on the basis of the evidence before him and had made some quite incorrect assumptions about the Department of Law's instructions in relation to this matter. There has been considerable correspondence between the Department of Law and the Ombudsman over this issue, and I would suggest that what probably ought to be in place now is an ability, where departments contest findings of the Ombudsman, for the information to be relayed to the interested parties as well as the findings of the Ombudsman himself. In fairness, I think it most important that the views of all are known.
To conclude on this, because it is important, I am more than happy to take on the issue raised by the member for Wanguri. Sadly, he does not appear to be overly interested in the tragedy itself, but is more interested in either the publicity that he is trying to gather around himself or, and I think this is more likely, in pursuing the blood of more public servants. The Ombudsman himself, in the very report that the member tabled today, indicated quite deliberately that it was not appropriate to pursue public servants over this matter. It is the member for Wanguri who has taken it on himself to pursue individual officers of the Department of Law in regard to a matter in which, quite clearly in my belief, they had no role to play at the specific time of the inquiry that he referred to the Ombudsman.
Page 57
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016