Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2300 ..

every morning and listened to all the briefings and had conversations and briefings in between times from various people, including Mike Castle. The matters you raise are primarily a matter for the coroner, who has been most diligent and most thorough.

I can say that during that time I, along with others, became concerned about the fires—the McIntyres and others. As minister for forests, as part of DUS, it was of concern to me that the forests might be at threat. As to particular times and dates and what was said on particular days, I will leave that to the coroners court.

MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will you be giving evidence before the coroners inquest to elaborate on the issue you have just raised or are you using it as a smokescreen to avoid accountability to this Assembly?

MR WOOD: I think the question has been well answered over the period.

Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a specific question that has been avoided. Standing order 118 says that answers shall be concise and confined to the subject matter. That is a new question. The minister has not answered it and he should.

Mr Hargreaves: If it is a new question, it is not a supplementary.

MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Order!

Mr Wood: You sat me down before.

Mr Hargreaves: It is not a supplementary.

MR SPEAKER: Order! It is up to ministers how they answer questions. The minister has responded as is his right to do so.

Mr Smyth: Except under standing order 118 answers shall be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question. You, of course, Mr Speaker, would have ruled it out of order if it had been answered before because, as you well know, 117 (h) says a question fully answered cannot be renewed. Having not ruled it out of order, it must be answerable and he should do so.

Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Smyth said that it was a new question, and you should rule that out of order.

MR SPEAKER: There was a supplementary question asked of the minister which went to the issue of whether or not the minister’s approach was a smokescreen. The minister responded, I think, concisely. I think it passes the concise test. So far as the subject matter is concerned, my recollection of his response was that he would leave it to the coroner. I cannot require the minister to go further than that.

Mr Smyth: Except, Mr Speaker, the start of the supplementary was “Will you be giving evidence before the coroner?” He has not answered that part of the supplementary question and you should direct him to do so.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .