Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3397 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
This is significant, Mr Speaker:
Having regard to the principles of natural justice, and given both the Terms of Reference of this Board of Inquiry and particularly the provisions of section 21 of the Inquiries Act 1991, the Inquiry could not have been conducted by examining documents alone. Examining witnesses at a public hearing would have been inevitable.
I do not envisage the Inquiry continuing if it were to be limited to an examination of papers. Accordingly, if the views of the Chief Coroner and Chief Magistrate about the possible impact of my Inquiry on the Coronial Inquest are accepted, I am prepared to resign.
And indeed, Mr Speaker, he did. There was also later legal advice obtained that supported the appropriateness of the view taken by the then board of inquiry, Major General Smethurst. In the circumstances, that was clearly an appropriate position for that board of inquiry to take. It considered that the views of the Chief Magistrate and Chief Coroner ought to be taken into account and that the potential for conflict was so great that it ought to have led to a cessation of one process or the other.
I ask members to consider that precedent. I also ask members to consider what they themselves-that is, what the parties then represented in the Assembly-had to say about that very process. I do not have copies of the statements that were made at that stage. Because of the lack of notice of this motion, we have still to obtain them. They might be tabled later in this debate.
Members will recall, I suspect, that they were quite explicit, quite outspoken about what was appropriate in these circumstances. As I recall, the Labor opposition of the day, Mr Whitecross in particular, was quite firmly of the view-perhaps even strident-that the inquiry should be shut down for the reasons given.
I would like to understand why Mr Wood feels that it is possible for Professor West, or somebody else, to conduct an inquiry under the Inquiries Act without facing the problems that arose in respect of Major General Smethurst's inquiry subsequent to the implosion. The coroner's views in both cases have been, as far as I can see, identical. If it was good enough for the Labor opposition then to say that the principles of natural justice demand that there not be an inquiry that would cut across the coronial process-
Ms Carnell: Very, very vocally.
MR HUMPHRIES: He made that point very vocally. Ms Carnell may well have the particular quotes concerned. (Extension of time granted.) It may be that those views were very clearly expressed on that occasion. I would like to hear what the differences are between these two situations because, whatever the views advanced by those in the opposition, they clearly are not the views of the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Magistrate's views apparently are that there is a conflict.
I want to make two points at this juncture. The opposition and others in the Assembly are clearly intent on this happening, and I suspect that they have the numbers to make it happen. That appears to be the case and I will see what actually happens when this matter is-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .