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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 314 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We need to put this notion of defamation in some context. We also need to acknowledge that this Parliament, just 18 months or so ago, passed the most progressive defamation law in Australia. That was a piece of defamation law introduced by the then Attorney, Mr Humphries. That was supported by the Labor Party. That defamation law is far-reaching and progressive. It is easily the most progressive piece of defamation legislation in the common law countries-a piece of defamation legislation designed to balance the right to free speech against the right to have one's reputation protected. Of course, there is a fine balance to be made there.

I am not particularly interested in the notion of protecting statements or submissions designed simply to trash the reputations of hard-working, dedicated, professional public servants without some concomitant responsibility in the context of being honest and truthful in the submission. Let's not forget this. Let's not muck around here. Let's not beat about the bush. There are a number of dedicated, professional, senior public servants whose reputations are on the line. There has been a lot of talk about responsibility; that this was done and that was not done; that this was negligent and that was appalling; that help was spurned; that they turned their backs and put the community at risk, and that houses burnt down because they were negligent.

We can all sit here and pretend that nobody out there needs to accept that criticism as personal, or as applying to them. But let me tell you this: I meet regularly with a number of senior, dedicated professional public servants who know that those comments are directed at them-a group of professionals who have barely slept for the past month; who have worked themselves to the bone; who have suffered the most enormous stress on behalf of this community and are at the point of collapse. They know who everybody is talking about, and you and I know who those people are. I can tell you what they are thinking. They are thinking that they did their best and that this community has turned its back on them.

I am not going to cop that. I need to find a balance between an open and objective inquiry-an inquiry that will look at every aspect of this-one which will investigate the behaviour, professionalism and performance of everybody involved, including the senior members of the Emergency Services Bureau.

They know that their performance is under the microscope. They accept that as fair. But I am not going to support a witch-hunt. I am not going to say, "All bets are off; you're on your own, fellas."I am going to insist that this process is fair-and elements of it have not been fair. We saw that yesterday-and I don't resile from a single thing I said yesterday. That attack was simply unfair and unconscionable and I won't cop it. I will stand there with them.

The difficulty is, of course, that the more we politicise this process, the more we devalue it-so that the people of Canberra cannot have the confidence in this inquiry that they deserve to have that we are genuinely seeking answers.

This government has taken a position here. We have a major judicial inquiry in train which has been fully resourced and is fully supported. It will cost us a minimum of $1.5 million. We will employ at least half a dozen senior counsel before the end of the day. We have applied 10 Australian Federal Police officers to it. We have applied the resources. It is up to the coroner to do the job-we cannot interfere in that.

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