❓ Hon George Cash questions Hon Tom Stephens about the omission of Supreme Court action 1227/03 from a previous answer. Hon Stephens apologizes, explaining the omission was due to uncertainty about the writ's service and subsequent amendment, and confirms his involvement as a defendant.
AnsweredQoN 1384Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s answer to question on notice 595 on 7 May 2003 and ask why no reference is made to Supreme Court action 1227/03, which was commenced on 5 March 2003 by Thomas Askew as the plaintiff and in which the minister is named as one of the defendants? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I apologise to the member and the House. It appears that one legal action escaped the notice of my department when providing advice in relation to question on notice 595. Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I apologise to the member and the House. It appears that one legal action escaped the notice of my department when providing advice in relation to question on notice 595. Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I apologise to the member and the House. It appears that one legal action escaped the notice of my department when providing advice in relation to question on notice 595. Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I apologise to the member and the House. It appears that one legal action escaped the notice of my department when providing advice in relation to question on notice 595. Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I apologise to the member and the House. It appears that one legal action escaped the notice of my department when providing advice in relation to question on notice 595. Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon George Cash: When you say “my department” do you exclude yourself? Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I did not knowingly or deliberately exclude myself. If the member listens, he will learn more. Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon George Cash: The minister referred to the department. I assumed the minister was attempting to exclude himself. Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I see what the member means. No. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is sounding like a round of supplementary questions. Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: No. The member picked me up on a good point. I was not trying to exclude myself. I did not notice the need to provide the member with the following information. When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
When the response to question on notice 595 was prepared, there was conjecture whether the writ of summons - Supreme Court action 1227/03 - had been appropriately served on the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. I am advised that the Supreme Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the writ and that leave to substitute a new claim was granted on 21 May 2003 due to defects in the original proceedings. Therefore, I am now able to advise the House that Mr Askew has commenced legal action involving the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and me, as the responsible minister, as two of 21 original defendants. I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
I apologise to the member. With the benefit of hindsight the original defective writ could probably have been included in the original answer. I have spent no time thinking about this issue at all but others apparently have. I did not know of the specific issue that was the subject of their deliberations when they prepared the draft response. That is the way they prepared the response. However, now that we have had a good chance to look at the member’s subsequent question and the adjusted writ - the action agreed to for alteration by the Supreme Court - it could have been wisely included in the original answer provided. As this matter is the subject of legal proceedings, I do not intend commenting further.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.