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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3702 ..

MR STANHOPE: I take this issue very seriously. Unlike the opposition, I take seriously the question and the importance of ensuring the integrity of our courts. I take seriously the separation of powers. I am gravely concerned—and have been concerned ever since the coronial inquest started—that the opposition has unrelentingly asked questions around a matter being dealt with in a court. It needs to be said that, during the hospital implosion inquest, we as the opposition did not ask a single question on that inquest.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point or order. Under standing order 118(b), the minister is not allowed to argue the question. The question is about funding. He is talking about the coronial process; we are talking about the funding of the coronial inquest. I ask you to direct the minister to answer the question within the bounds of the standing orders.

MR SPEAKER: Minister, come to the subject matter of the question. But, Mr Smyth, it is legitimate to ponder issues around sub judice in the context of this question.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: if it were sub judice, you would have ruled it out of order, and you have not done so. It is not sub judice.

MR SPEAKER: I said that the Chief Minister, in giving his answer to the question, is entitled to ponder the question of sub judice—surely.

MR STANHOPE: I regret that the opposition will not take the point about the extent to which questions such as this do impact very much on the separation of powers; do impact very much on the relationship between the parliament and the courts. These are very serious issues.

As to the criticism of the ACT Government Solicitor in relation to experts’ reports, on my understanding of what the coroner said, I believe her comments were completely misplaced.

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, why did you make these decisions despite advice from the coroner, right from the start, that it would be likely to delay her inquest considerably, meaning that she will not meet her target date of the beginning of the bushfire season? Do you accept responsibility for this failure and for the subsequent delays in implementing the findings of her report?

MR STANHOPE: To deal with the misstatement of the facts in the question is always a difficulty. The opposition asks questions that start with statements that are not true, as Mr Stefaniak has just done. It is always very difficult to answer a question when it is based on a false premise. Mr Stefaniak asked his question on the basis of something attributed to me—that the coroner suggested that I had refused to make a decision—that is absolutely false. It is very difficult to answer a question, such as Mr Stefaniak’s, posited on a falsehood—as are many questions asked by the opposition. The underlying assumption that I made decisions to deny anybody funding is just not true. I do not know whether I can answer a question based on such flagrant falsehood—a falsehood that—

Mr Quinlan: A flaw in your logic, a fundamental flaw in your logic—a disconnect. Dope.

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