Mr SETTER - 1994-08-30
Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri told this House last week of his involvement in regard to the coronial inquiry into the death of a student ..
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Since that matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, it is hardly appropriate that further questions be asked about it.
Mr SPEAKER: I have not heard the full question, but the matter of privilege refers to only one incident. I am not aware whether this question refers to yet another incident.
Mr SETTER: It refers to a different incident, Mr Speaker.
The member for Wanguri told the House last week of his involvement in relation to the coronial inquiry into the death of a student who had inhaled fire extinguisher fumes. Hansard shows that the member said: 'Within 1 hour of my completing my evidence, the coroner walked in with his 14-page report'. Can the minister advise whether there is any basis for this terrible slur on the coroner?
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I refer to standing orders 112(2)(c) and 112(2)(d). Clearly, the member's question contains various inferences and imputations about
Page 107
the member for Wanguri and those standing orders prohibit that. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule the question out of order.
Mr Palmer: Does it refer to ironic expressions perchance?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked for a statement of fact and, as such, his question contains no imputation. As I understand it, he is asking about an incident to which the member for Wanguri referred last week, and seeking advice as to whether it was a truthful incident or not.
Mr EDE: He referred to it as 'scurrilous', and that is an imputation that he cannot make.
Mr Coulter: He never said 'scurrilous'.
Members interjecting.
Mr Setter: I did not use the word 'scurrilous'.
Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, I did not hear the word 'scurrilous'.
Mr BELL: The member's question accused my colleague of casting a 'slur' on the coroner. Certainly, that comes within the ambit of standing order 112 and it probably comes within the ambit of standing order 62 also. If the member wants to make those kinds of comments about a member of this Assembly, he should do it by way of substantive motion. However, of course, that is the last thing that this government wants.
Mr SETTER: Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the words 'terrible slur'.
Mr Stirling: It is still subject to privilege.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I wonder why members opposite are not keen to hear ...
Mr Stirling: You do not mind having a question asked about the matter, but you will not debate it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: As the Chief Minister indicated earlier, we are happy to debate the matter appropriately whenever the opposition likes.
Mr Stirling: When?
Members interjecting.
Page 108
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr FINCH: The member for Wanguri was invited last Tuesday to bring on a matter of public importance debate, and he said that he would. Thus, it is his problem, not mine.
The member was wrong in suggesting last Tuesday evening that the counsel assisting the coroner had failed to pass on the member's evidence to the coronial inquiry. He was wrong also in suggesting that the coroner had not taken into account the member's evidence. The suggestion that the member had his haircut interrupted at approximately 12.30 on Friday 6 March ...
Members interjecting.
Mr FINCH: My apologies. It was December.
He was wrong to suggest that the coroner handed down 14 pages of findings within an hour. All of those suggestions were wrong. I will table a more appropriate record, provided by my department, of the coroner's assessment of the member's evidence and the proceedings in chronological order. The member can take out his red pen during the next 24 hours and fix Hansard in the way that he thinks it ought to read in relation to his being misquoted. Alternatively, perhaps he is talking about what he meant to say, but did not say. However, it is untrue - and, as a matter of fact, it is a slur on the coroner as the member for MacDonnell would agree - to make those 2 suggestions as they appear currently in Hansard. If the coroner had been here listening, he would have reacted very angrily, as I have, to such an inappropriate comment. The coroner is not here to defend himself, but I am.
Mr Bell: That is your job!
Mr FINCH: I table the coroner's summary.
Members interjecting.
Mr FINCH: That is my job, so do not tell me how to do it.
Mr Bell: ... government debate, you wimp!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacDonnell!
Mr FINCH: What we have here is a totally incorrect slur on the operations and intent of the counsel assisting the coroner and the coroner himself. Immediately following Question Time, the member for Wanguri can stand and apologise in this House to the coroner and all the other parties whom he has injured. Quite simply, from the very outset when the information was handed to him, the coroner suggested that the member for Wanguri's information was, in his words, 'irrelevant'. That is no different from the member for Wanguri himself.
Page 109
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Since that matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, it is hardly appropriate that further questions be asked about it.
Mr SPEAKER: I have not heard the full question, but the matter of privilege refers to only one incident. I am not aware whether this question refers to yet another incident.
Mr SETTER: It refers to a different incident, Mr Speaker.
The member for Wanguri told the House last week of his involvement in relation to the coronial inquiry into the death of a student who had inhaled fire extinguisher fumes. Hansard shows that the member said: 'Within 1 hour of my completing my evidence, the coroner walked in with his 14-page report'. Can the minister advise whether there is any basis for this terrible slur on the coroner?
Mr EDE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I refer to standing orders 112(2)(c) and 112(2)(d). Clearly, the member's question contains various inferences and imputations about
Page 107
the member for Wanguri and those standing orders prohibit that. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule the question out of order.
Mr Palmer: Does it refer to ironic expressions perchance?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked for a statement of fact and, as such, his question contains no imputation. As I understand it, he is asking about an incident to which the member for Wanguri referred last week, and seeking advice as to whether it was a truthful incident or not.
Mr EDE: He referred to it as 'scurrilous', and that is an imputation that he cannot make.
Mr Coulter: He never said 'scurrilous'.
Members interjecting.
Mr Setter: I did not use the word 'scurrilous'.
Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, I did not hear the word 'scurrilous'.
Mr BELL: The member's question accused my colleague of casting a 'slur' on the coroner. Certainly, that comes within the ambit of standing order 112 and it probably comes within the ambit of standing order 62 also. If the member wants to make those kinds of comments about a member of this Assembly, he should do it by way of substantive motion. However, of course, that is the last thing that this government wants.
Mr SETTER: Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the words 'terrible slur'.
Mr Stirling: It is still subject to privilege.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I wonder why members opposite are not keen to hear ...
Mr Stirling: You do not mind having a question asked about the matter, but you will not debate it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: As the Chief Minister indicated earlier, we are happy to debate the matter appropriately whenever the opposition likes.
Mr Stirling: When?
Members interjecting.
Page 108
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr FINCH: The member for Wanguri was invited last Tuesday to bring on a matter of public importance debate, and he said that he would. Thus, it is his problem, not mine.
The member was wrong in suggesting last Tuesday evening that the counsel assisting the coroner had failed to pass on the member's evidence to the coronial inquiry. He was wrong also in suggesting that the coroner had not taken into account the member's evidence. The suggestion that the member had his haircut interrupted at approximately 12.30 on Friday 6 March ...
Members interjecting.
Mr FINCH: My apologies. It was December.
He was wrong to suggest that the coroner handed down 14 pages of findings within an hour. All of those suggestions were wrong. I will table a more appropriate record, provided by my department, of the coroner's assessment of the member's evidence and the proceedings in chronological order. The member can take out his red pen during the next 24 hours and fix Hansard in the way that he thinks it ought to read in relation to his being misquoted. Alternatively, perhaps he is talking about what he meant to say, but did not say. However, it is untrue - and, as a matter of fact, it is a slur on the coroner as the member for MacDonnell would agree - to make those 2 suggestions as they appear currently in Hansard. If the coroner had been here listening, he would have reacted very angrily, as I have, to such an inappropriate comment. The coroner is not here to defend himself, but I am.
Mr Bell: That is your job!
Mr FINCH: I table the coroner's summary.
Members interjecting.
Mr FINCH: That is my job, so do not tell me how to do it.
Mr Bell: ... government debate, you wimp!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacDonnell!
Mr FINCH: What we have here is a totally incorrect slur on the operations and intent of the counsel assisting the coroner and the coroner himself. Immediately following Question Time, the member for Wanguri can stand and apologise in this House to the coroner and all the other parties whom he has injured. Quite simply, from the very outset when the information was handed to him, the coroner suggested that the member for Wanguri's information was, in his words, 'irrelevant'. That is no different from the member for Wanguri himself.
Page 109
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016