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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 196 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Ms Tucker acknowledged that my motion would make the inquiry more effective and give it greater power. I am at a loss to understand how she can say that and then not support the motion. Ms Tucker said that the issues could be dealt with separately, and I agree with that. But instead of having these reviews go to the government, why not have them go to the inquirer, why not have the studies go to the inquirer, so that the inquirer can put together the full picture on behalf of the community of the ACT?

There was a fear that there might be a blow-out in the cost. Well, what cost the truth? Are we going to put a cost on the truth? I understand that the reverse side of Gallop was that many people were pleased that they had protections and that they actually were involved. They were even encouraged to come forward to say their piece because they knew that they had some protection which gave them the confidence that they might not normally have had.

I do not think we should accept the argument of a fear of something being too legalistic. The whole process will be quite legalistic in the coroner's inquiry but we do not doubt that we should have a coroner's inquiry.

Ms Tucker: That's the place for it.

MR SMYTH: I thank Ms Tucker. We have had a couple of conversations about this and I think I understand her position. But if the position of the government is that they simply prefer their terms of reference, okay, elevate their terms of reference to a full-on inquiry under the Inquiries Act.

The Chief Minister made much of the fact that there is a coroner's inquest. As we all know, that was to have happened anyway. There are any number of examples where coroners' inquests and independent judicial inquiries have run side by side. It is not about competition: it is about complementarity and making sure that we get this done in appropriate time frames. I know, for instance, that researchers from the ANU and the School of Forestry were out within days, gathering the evidence before the evidence disappeared, was disturbed, demolished or, in the case of a rainstorm, washed away. So there is a necessity for speed to gather the information and make sure we get it right.

Mr Stanhope said he wanted it done properly, appropriately and without any political opportunism. I think we all want that. I think one of the ways, as Ms Dundas pointed out, to ensure that is to make the process inclusive so that the process goes through the Assembly and therefore has some imprimatur. And I think that is correct. I do not believe that this will duplicate what the coroner will do. The coroner has specific purposes and the coroner will, because of those specific purposes, unfortunately take a great deal of time. That is the route that coroners' inquests always take.

Unfortunately, we do not have time. If you wish to rebuild your house and start when the block is cleared, possibly within months, you will not have any expert, independent advice about what precautions you should take. Should we, before we allow rebuilding, redesign some of these suburbs? I personally suspect not, but they are questions that could be answered quickly and effectively, and come through the initial report of an independent inquiry by the end of April.

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