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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1449 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Mr Humphries did not say anything about that. He did not indicate that maybe their relationship has been so bad that he might be acting, not in the interests of the community, but in the interests of some vendetta against Mr Collaery. Is that a possibility, one might ask?

He even continued it here this morning by raising the question of Mr Collaery's relationship with members of this place. Why is he doing that? It has to do with the timing of his complaint and the fact that he seeks to denigrate Mr Collaery in every way that he can. In my view, it could only be to raise questions about Mr Collaery's capacity to act properly for the Benders. I think that is rather curious because, in the doing, the only effect of that could be to reduce Mr Collaery's effectiveness as a barrister, to reduce his effectiveness as a counsel for the Bender family. As I asked Mr Humphries yesterday, in whose interests was he acting when he lodged his complaint? Clearly, he was not acting in the interests of the Bender family. Here we have a family which has lost a daughter in very tragic circumstances and at a crucial time in the coronial hearing Mr Humphries lodges a complaint about Mr Collaery's performance - four months after the alleged offence and at a time when, as I understand it, Mr Collaery, as with all the other counsel, would have been preparing his final submission to the coroner. Why did Mr Humphries choose that time to do that? It could only be, I submit, somehow to denigrate Mr Collaery, put him off balance, make him less effective as the counsel for the Bender family.

If there is anybody in this matter whose interests the Attorney-General should be taking care to preserve, it is surely the Bender family; but Mr Humphries obviously has no regard for that. He does not give a hoot about the Bender family. He does not give a hoot whether at the end of the day the Bender family comes out of this thing with some dignity and some justice. Mr Speaker, I find that offensive. I have referred to Mr Humphries' weak defence, which seemed to concentrate solely on whether a member of his staff went there with his knowledge or whether she did not. I think that it does indicate a bias, it does indicate a prejudice, against Mr Collaery. If at the end of the day that adversely affects the outcomes for the Bender family, as far as Mr Humphries is concerned it is tough luck. Mr Speaker, I do not share that view. I think that the Bender family is entitled to more consideration than that from the Attorney-General.

I said yesterday that I thought his behaviour was reprehensible. I have not changed my view today in view of his rather weak defence of the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The crossbenchers were distracted by members of the Government while Mr Stanhope was speaking. I noticed that Mr Rugendyke was not given a chance to hear one word of what Mr Stanhope said. He was being talked at constantly by a member of the Government. I ask Mr Rugendyke: In all honesty, how much of what Mr Stanhope said did you actually hear? I submit that it was very little, because I was watching very carefully. Why was a member of the Government down there in your ear while Mr Stanhope was talking? Ask yourself the question.

Mr Osborne: If you were concentrating on him, why weren't you listening to Jon?

MR KAINE: You were not even in the house.

Mr Osborne: I was upstairs listening.

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