Page 2035 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To comply with the timeframe determined by the Assembly, Mr Todd adopted the following process: All involved were asked to lodge with his inquiry any suggested difficulties for examination. Mr Todd provided a list of accepted difficulties that fell within the terms of the inquiry. He then called for submissions on those difficulties and conducted interviews with the makers of statements or submissions. Appropriately, Mr Todd had access to all the files on the Braddon section 22 process and to all those within the ACT administration whom he wished to interview.
Turning to the nature of the inquiry, I think it is best illustrated by quoting paragraph 10 of Mr Todd's report. It reads:
I am aware that at various stages of the matter allegations have been made or forecast of impropriety or worse having occurred in the course of the development proposals the subject of the inquiry. I am however firmly of opinion that, whatever may have been the intention of the framers of the motion, the wording of it is in no way apt to lead to a conclusion that the consideration of, still less the ruling upon, the truth or otherwise of such allegations is properly within the ambit of this inquiry. An inquiry into such matters would have to have very distinct terms of reference, legally drawn or settled, raising very specifically the need to consider and rule upon allegations of impropriety. Such an inquiry would need to be conducted in an adversarial manner, with the ability to compel the attendance of witnesses and for them to be able to be cross-examined. Those accused of impropriety would be entitled to know, with some precision, what allegations are made against them. There would necessarily of course have to be a right of legal representation. Innuendo and surmise are not enough, and can do great harm without an opportunity being available to those impugned to clear their names. I can say no more than that I found nothing in the material before me, or in the interviews that I conducted, to make me suspect any improper conduct.
There are some in the community who think we should have established a different form of inquiry. Again, because there has been public speculation in advance about consideration of this report and because the document is critical of this Assembly, I table a letter from the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra to Mr Todd, and Mr Todd's referral of that letter to me. I note that the council's letter refers to submissions having been returned to it, and I refer members to paragraph 53 of Mr Todd's report, which says that the council eventually decided not to lodge a submission. Mr Todd has indicated why he did not report on the allegations concerning "mates". While this may not be the outcome some expected in the Assembly debate on the matter, Mr Todd's statement at the end of paragraph 10 of his report, coupled with the vague nature of the claims put forward in that earlier debate, suggests that the nature of the inquiry was appropriate.
I now wish to comment on the recommendations and other suggestions or comments made in the report, many of which reflect on the nature of the legislation. The Government is committed to review the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. It is a piece of legislation enacted by the First Assembly and bears some of the quirks of that Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .