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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1444 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Attorney-General not entitled to express a view about the appropriateness of solicitors? Mr Stanhope, if one day you became Minister for Health in this place, you would encounter a number of doctors in the course of your duty as Health Minister. If a friend of yours or someone you know asked you, "Do you think I should go to Dr Z for a lobotomy?", do you think that you would decline to offer him advice about that doctor that you had acquired in your professional capacity? Of course you would not.

Mr Stanhope: If I was the Attorney-General, I would abide by the Bar Association rules.

MR HUMPHRIES: What is wrong in this case with it happening if it were to be the case?

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! I will not tolerate interjections.

Mr Berry: He should not provoke them by asking questions of members.

MR SPEAKER: I ask you all to be quiet, otherwise somebody will be thrown out.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the core of this motion, the central tenet of this motion, fails utterly because, first of all, it is unsupported by any evidence; secondly, it is strenuously denied; and, thirdly, even if it were true, it is hardly a matter which reflects in any way on me serving as Attorney-General for this community.

Mr Stanhope may try to make some connection with inappropriate intervention in an inquest, but at that stage there was no inquest. There was simply a death which may ultimately have led to an inquest in which ultimately Mr Collaery may have been involved, but offering recommendations or non-recommendations about particular individuals at that stage, a few days after the implosion, hardly constitutes a basis for a motion of the kind that has been moved today - the most extraordinarily serious motion that can be moved on the floor of this place, second only to a want of confidence in the Chief Minister. It is absolutely and utterly extraordinary.

Mr Speaker, as I discerned the rather weak and hesitating argument which has been put in this place today, there are three other matters which constitute the basis for this motion of no confidence. One is the argument, if I understand it correctly, that making a complaint against a legal practitioner in a matter in which the Government has an interest is some kind of conflict of interest and that I should not be involved. The suggestion has also been made in remarks, again without any evidence, that this is probably the only matter that I have targeted in this way and, therefore, I must be picking out Mr Collaery because we wanted to get at him at the time he was absorbed in this inquest. Mr Speaker, I regularly make representations to the Law Society about the conduct of lawyers in this town. I doubt whether Mr Stanhope, if he ever occupies these shoes, would be able to avoid doing likewise. My staff have reminded me that in the last 12 months I have raised five separate matters with the Law Society concerning the conduct of solicitors.

Mr Moore: Is that the last 12 months?

MR HUMPHRIES: In the last 12 months alone.

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