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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2816 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The provisions in the bill have some interesting features. For example, rather than the Supreme Court appointing a magistrate to conduct an inquiry, the executive is required to appoint a board of inquiry under the Inquiries Act. This will take some pressure off the magistrates and allow the appointment of persons totally unconnected with the original case to conduct the inquiry. An additional interesting feature is that under the old provision the executive had to make the final decision on what to do about the outcome of the inquiry. That responsibility has been shifted to the full court. I think there are arguments for and against that, but it certainly depoliticises any final decision that may be made. As I said, the Labor Party will support the amendment.

I must say I have found this matter very difficult and I have some concerns. I probably need to be blunt and say that I do not believe that the Eastman case is sub judice. I think we can perhaps talk about it because it is not really a judicial inquiry. I have not been able to establish from my inquiries or my reading of the existing provisions as against what you are proposing whether there is any impact on the process that Mr Eastman is engaged in.

I have a concern about your amendments, and that concern to some extent is-I only know this from Rod Campbell's article in the Canberra Times today-that Eastman is in fact the first person in 87 years in the ACT to seek the benefit of the existing provisions, and that is happening at this very moment. I am concerned that we have the first ever application by an individual under the existing provisions, and whilst that application is current you are amending the law. Maybe that is irrelevant to Mr Eastman; maybe it is not.

My concern is: I do not know. I am very nervous about passing these amendments when I simply do not know whether they impact on the one and only person that has ever sought to use the existing provisions in the act. The timing causes me some serious difficulties. Attorney, I do not know if it is coincidental-perhaps it is-but I am seriously concerned that, in the midst of Mr Eastman's application for whatever review it is that he is seeking, you are changing the law.

I am not quite sure if that is fair or unfair to Mr Eastman. Maybe it is fair to him-I just do not know. But if it is unfair to him, then I do not think it is safe for us to proceed. I think you need to give us an assurance that this in no way affects negatively Eastman's case, whatever it is. I am really concerned that you are at this time changing the law in respect of the Crimes Act.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (1.49 am): Mr Stanhope, those are very valid concerns. Indeed, in order to be absolutely certain we were thinking of somehow taking this provision out and just waiting until that matter is finalised. I still think there might be things we need to do in relation to the 475 matter.

I am advised by my department that the repeal of 475 will have absolutely no effect upon the Eastman inquiry which, as you rightly say, is the first of its kind that we have any history of and is currently under way. It is difficult to know whether it is sub judice but I think obviously it is relevant to this issue. Quite clearly, I do not think any of us would want what is coming in now to have any adverse effect on that.

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