Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 189 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
18 Coroner's jurisdiction in relation to fires
(1) A coroner shall hold an inquiry into the cause and origin of a fire that has destroyed or damaged property, if-(a) requested to do so by the Attorney-General; or
(b) the coroner is of the opinion that an inquiry into the cause and origin of the fire should be held.
(2) Where-
(a) the owner or occupier of destroyed or damaged property requests a coroner to hold an inquiry into the cause and origin of a fire; and
(b) the coroner is of the opinion that an inquiry into the cause and origin of the fire should not be held;
the coroner shall give to each owner or occupier who requested that an inquiry be held written notice of his or her opinion and the grounds on which the opinion is based.
So far, so good. The coroner wanted an inquiry. That would be normal. The Attorney-General wants an inquiry. Section 19 in division 3.3, "Inquiries into disasters", is probably more relevant than section 18. It states:
19 Coroner's jurisdiction in relation to disasters
(1) The Chief Coroner shall, if requested to do so by the Attorney-General, cause an inquiry to be held into the cause and origin of a disaster.(2) The Chief Coroner shall not cause an inquiry to be held into the cause and origin of a disaster except with the consent of the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General has said he wants the Chief Coroner to do that. Chief Coroner Ron Cahill has appointed Maria Doogan as coroner. The coroner has to have an inquiry into the cause and origin of a disaster. The Chief Minister, under those sections, cannot direct exactly what the coroner should do. There is very good reason for that. That is why it is important to have an additional inquiry rather than an additional review.
It is very important that witnesses be able to give full, frank evidence and that they be protected. There may not be a need but there may well be. They would have the normal legal protection they would have if they were giving evidence in a court, which people will be doing before the Coroners Court.
I am a bit surprised that the government does not say, "Let us do it properly. Let us have an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, as Mr Smyth suggests."Mr Smyth's proposed terms of reference have been around for more than just a couple of days.
Ms Tucker is quite wrong in differentiating Mr Smyth's proposed inquiry from the Gallop inquiry. We had a pretty good coronial inquest then, I recall, but a lot of things that came out of the Gallop inquiry did not come out of the coronial inquest. Ms Tucker was very keen to see an inquiry at that stage, and the then Liberal government accepted the need for an inquiry and duly appointed former Justice Gallop to do that inquiry. I wonder whether it is because then it was a Labor opposition pressing a Liberal government for an inquiry and now it is vice versa that Ms Tucker has changed her tune.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .