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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3402 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Humphries talked about contamination of evidence. He asked what would happen if the inquirer compelled someone to give evidence before that person was compelled to give evidence or had to give evidence to the coroner? Why would a professional person compel anybody to give evidence to an independent inquiry if they knew it would cause a problem for the coronial investigation?

They would only do that if they did not have good intentions. No-one is suggesting that a person of stature such as Professor West would come in with bad intentions. Why would this be the case? Why would anyone be compelled to give evidence when it is quite clear that, in New South Wales, it has not been a problem for these inquiries to work around coronial processes.

This business of compelling someone and contaminating evidence does not have to be a problem at all. It is just about how the process is handled by the independent inquiry.

Mr Humphries: The coroner thinks that it is a problem, Kerrie.

MS TUCKER: I notice that in the coroner's letter there is really one paragraph where he focuses on what he thought could be some of the problems. I quote:

It does not have to be that way at all. Obviously it could hamper the inquest, but it does not have to, because it does not in New South Wales. The letter continues:

What resultant publicity? There do not have to be any public hearings in independent inquiries.

Why is there an assumption there that these hearings would be public under the independent Inquiries Act? As I understand it, they usually are not, as are such inquiries in New South Wales. I do not know what happened in previous inquiries under the Inquiries Act, but clearly the assumption is there that the worst is going to happen, that the most difficult thing is going to happen. I do not understand why that assumption has been made.

If there was a discussion with goodwill, the coroner could be reassured, I am sure, that such things would not have to happen. "It is undesirable that witnesses give evidence in different fora on separate occasions." I have already addressed those issues. "This will result in confusion, overlap, and the creation of a certain staleness 'of the evidence and the witnesses'." Having talked to people in the legal profession, I understood that staleness is usually actually a part of what can be seen as contamination of evidence, but it is usually related to a period of time elapsing.

So once again, these are issues that can be worked through if people have goodwill. I am sure that the coroner would have the goodwill to address these issues. If this Assembly, as is its right, has determined that there should be this inquiry, then, because I respect the Chief Coroner and the Chief Magistrate, and the coroner who would undertake this

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