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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2637 ..

MR WOOD

substantial or short. Members, I will read to you-as if you don't know-the terms of reference for the Estimates Committee. I quote:

...to examine the expenditure proposals contained in the Appropriation Bill 2003-2004 and any revenue estimates proposed by the Government in the 2003-2004 Budget.

They are as simple as that-to examine the income and expenditure as detailed in the budget. In my opening remarks to the committee, I made it very clear that I was happy to answer questions about expenditure and revenue estimates, but would not answer questions of detail about the January bushfires. I said:

Historically, Assembly estimates committees have ranged widely but, after the momentous events of January this year, this committee needs to remember that matters of personal responsibility and what happened and when are matters for elsewhere. They will be specifically and expertly addressed by the McLeod inquiry and the coroner's inquest and should be left for them. This is following correct Assembly processes.

I went on:

For this reason, I, with officers from ACT Policing and Emergency Services Bureau, won't be answering any questions relating to the details of the bushfires of January this year. This is also consistent with the response to media requests for interviews on the same matter. There is a sound process under way, with the McLeod inquiry and the coroner's inquiry, and that is where officers from the Emergency Services Bureau and others will provide answers to questions.

That is what I said; so I did answer your questions, quite explicitly.

There is a proper process in place in which all the questions will be asked and answered in a responsible, non-political arena. Detailed questions about who did what and when around 18 January 2003 have no place in an examination of expenditure, other than to drive a political witch-hunt which is being pursued solely for reasons of media exposure and short-term political gain.

I said that I welcomed questions on the usual matter of estimates. In fact, on occasions when the bushfires were mentioned, I accepted questions as being relevant. I said, for example, "That's a fair question. I'll seek a response."On another occasion I said, "I'll accept that question because it's separate from the actual incident of the fire."

We did give appropriate answers to appropriate questions. Officers gave detailed answers to the questions on the communications upgrade and on the burning of the fire trucks on 18 January, but we did not answer questions relating to where the fire was at some time. The coroner will be spending many months on that alone and you think you want to cover it in half an hour or an hour in estimates.

My statements and responses like that show that I had no intention of impeding the work of an estimates committee, a committee I have sat on in the past on many occasions, as indeed I have on many other committees. I was, however, justifiably concerned that an

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