Page 1172 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Noting that Mr Lamont's answer is in no way, shape or form reflective of the terms of the inquiry that Professor Pearce is conducting, I ask whether the Minister will give this Assembly an assurance and a commitment that he will offer the same public invitation to all those people, including - to use his term - some of his mates, among them Mr Hawke, to appear before the inquiry.
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, I believe that I have answered the substance of the question. I think that what Mr De Domenico and the Opposition should be doing is concentrating on issues which are not currently the subject of an inquiry. I find this absolutely reprehensible from the alleged spokesperson. Here it is - Wynken, Blynken and Nod. All they want to do is not only frustrate the process of the inquiry but continue to besmirch the names of anybody who they think needs that besmirching. It is about time you understood the very simple fact that this Government is saying that the appropriate way to handle those matters and have them tested is through the Pearce inquiry.
Mrs Carnell: So why did you go on television and tell Pearce whom he should call?
MR LAMONT: For a very simple reason. The dirty little deal that you people have struck on that side of the room to elicit confidential police information through your mates in Victoria needed to be exposed. It has been exposed and you should stand condemned for it.
Police Force - Advisers at Interviews
MR MOORE: My question is addressed to Mr Connolly as Attorney-General. I gave an indication that I would be asking a question of this nature. I understand that under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 the Federal Police must have a lawyer or an independent person present when interviewing people. Have the AFP kept statistics for the ACT in 1993? If so, how often was a lawyer present during an interview and how often was an independent person present during an interview?
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Moore did indicate before lunch that he was interested in that point. In fact, the Crimes Act does not require that an independent person or a lawyer be present, full stop. It gives a person a right to request that, and, if they request that, the independent person or lawyer must be present. It is not an absolute requirement; it is a right to have a lawyer or an independent person present during questioning.
I understand that in fact - and I am just trying to track it down in Hansard - there was a question on notice along similar lines. My records show that I signed the answer off in December, but I cannot find where it appears in Hansard. It was a similar question in relation to statistics. The advice is that, while the information would form part of the record of interview, which is kept now in written or, most commonly, audio-video form - records of interview for serious crime in the ACT now are invariably videotaped - there is no statistical analysis kept of how many times a lawyer or independent person is asked to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .