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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 511 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Cahill. He said that in his experience, including his lengthy experience as Chief Coroner, there is no way that that judicial inquiry, a standard judicial inquiry, will be completed in less than 18 months. In other words, we will have the results in time to implement them in 2005.

I am not prepared to wait. I am not waiting until 2005 to get the information that we need to start repairing, rebuilding and mending this community, taking the steps and doing the things that we need to do before the next bushfire season. This is an administrative inquiry. Why do you want two judicial inquiries running in parallel? Why do you want two judicial inquiries with the same terms of reference, namely, to look at every aspect of the fire, running together? What do you hope to achieve by that? Why do you want two judicial inquiries running for the next two years, racking up a cost of $2 million each, employing a dozen lawyers each? What extra information do you think you are going to get out of your judicial inquiry that the other judicial inquiry is not going to find? What is it that your judicial inquiry would do that the other judicial inquiry would not do? What is it?

Explain that to me. What is it that the Liberal/Democrats judicial inquiry is going to do that the judicial inquiry that is currently running is not going to do? Give me one example of something that it will do. Give me an example, one thing, that your judicial inquiry will do and the judicial inquiry that is currently under way will not do? Name one thing. You can't, because there is nothing to be named. This is just cheap politics. This is politics designed to get relevance for those who haven't had a toehold in issues around the fire. This is politics designed to give the Liberal Party a role, politics designed to give the new leader of the Liberal Party some standing and status. That's all it's about-cheap Brendan Smyth profile politics-and nothing else. There is no other explanation for this nonsense.

It is a determination to undermine the McLeod inquiry, a determination to undermine the good work that has been done to get us a quick and fast result on issues on which we need quick answers, a thorough process; a person in Mr McLeod of exceptional ability, undoubted integrity; a supporting consultant in Mr Ellis, one of the most experienced bushfire and fire experts in Australia, employed full time to assist Mr McLeod in his inquiry to ensure that we have that degree of expertise that we need; expansive terms of reference and an agreement by me to work with Mr Stefaniak to overcome the emerging concern of some around the need to be protected, particularly from defamation. I have said that I am happy to work with Mr Stefaniak. I have had legal advice today from the Department of Justice and Community Services which says that his bill is flawed and would not achieve the particular purpose that he seeks to achieve. I am happy to work with him to overcome that. Within a week we will have legislation introduced here today by Mr Stefaniak, supported by the government, to deal with the issues of defamation.

I have said, and I do not resile from this, that I do not believe that it is necessary. I have a detailed briefing on defamation and its application to the McLeod inquiry which I will circulate today. Irrespective of that, I am more than happy to allay the concerns that have been raised, the fears that have been fuelled in relation to this issue, to overcome the concerns and doubts within the community. We will do that.

Your fundamental argument that there is no protection has gone, which does highlight the division within the Liberal Party. They don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha.

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