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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3398 ..

Mr Wood: Just accept it. Let us get on with it.

MR HUMPHRIES: I ask an opportunity to make my remarks without interruptions.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I would welcome that myself.

MR HUMPHRIES: This is a fairly serious matter, Mr Speaker. We are talking about the deaths of a number of people, and I think it is extremely important that we do this very sensibly.

Mr Quinlan: Posturing.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry. Mr Quinlan believes this is posturing. If I were to ignore the views of the Chief Magistrate or any other member of the judiciary in this way on another occasion, I would be flattened by this Assembly with a motion, and probably not just a motion of censure, but a motion of no confidence. What would members be saying about the Attorney-General of the ACT if he were to say to a member of the judiciary, "Look forget your views. I do not care what you think. Your views about how your work might be undercut by some political process are irrelevant. I am going to put it to one side. I do not care about what you think. I am doing it anyway."

Members would have me on toast in those circumstances, Mr Speaker. They would have my guts for garters. They would want my resignation yesterday. Yet now, when it suits members to have an inquiry, the views of the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Coroner are apparently immaterial. That is a matter of great concern.

This is corrupting more than a process laid out in the law, which allows for the government of the day to appoint inquiries under the Inquiries Act, not parliament-and I remind you that this is an act passed by the Labor government of 1991. It was their express view that the government of the day should appoint such inquiries. Mr Wood will recall that, because he was a member of that government at the time. If we use this device to overcome the clear intent and spirit of Terry Connolly's Inquiries Act, then we have set a precedent.

Let me say that it is my view that, although it is a terrible distortion of the conventions and spirit of the law to have this conducted in the teeth of opposition from the Coroner's Court, and in circumstances where clearly the spirit of the act has been violated as well, if it is the will of the Assembly that this occur, and it does indeed occur, we have set a precedent. We have set a precedent, Mr Speaker, and that precedent will be used in the future, including by the Liberal Party if it is in opposition. Do not assume that this precedent will be quickly cancelled again when everyone realises subsequently the foolishness of the decision that has been made.

The second point I want to make is that the Labor Party in particular, which is moving this motion, is going to have to bear the consequences of their actions today. If the government, pursuant to the dictate of the Assembly, appoints an inquiry under this motion, and if the coroner subsequently reports that he is unable to reach conclusions about the deaths and associated matters of these three people, if the coronial process has been corrupted as a result of this motion, the Labor Party will wear that.

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