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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1275 ..

servants who feel that they should be separately represented will be represented, and we have put those steps in place.

MR SMYTH: I have a supplementary question. Minister, you have just said that you have moved to ensure that ACT public servants will receive separate representation. Why have you denied funding for separate representation to a volunteer who had a significant operational role during the bushfires?

MR STANHOPE: I am not aware that we have done that. Indeed, just yesterday I raised the issue of representation of volunteers in discussions I had with the acting chief executive officer of the department of justice. The position we have taken is that we will seek to support and ensure that all witnesses before the inquest are supported. I am referring to public sector employees and those that were involved in fighting the fire and meeting the interests of the territory through their volunteer activity. That covers all members of volunteer brigades.

I raised that issue—the position and circumstance of volunteers—just yesterday with the acting chief executive of the department of justice. The advice I received was that volunteers would not be treated differently from members of the public service. There is a question here though, of course—

Mr Smyth: They were told yesterday they couldn’t.

MR STANHOPE: I am surprised to hear Mr Smyth’s claim that volunteers were being denied legal representation. Having said that, there is a question about whether it is appropriate that every single person that stumps up and says, “I would like a barrister” should automatically be afforded a barrister. I understand that about 50 representations or approaches have now been made to the territory’s legal team, the department of justice or to the Emergency Services Bureau. There is the prospect of 50 separate barristers.

As a result of the comments made by the coroner last week there is some anxiety. I am being very open and honest about this. There are heightened levels of anxiety amongst some prospective witnesses as a result of perceptions of the way the inquiry is being conducted and the effect of some of the examination and cross-examination on some witnesses and on their reputations. There is still a significant number of public servants and public sector witnesses to be called and examined.

It is through those joint issues of levels of justifiable and understandable anxiety amongst public servants and others and the comments made about the desirability of separate representation that have lead, I understand, to approximately 50 approaches being made for separate representation. I am willing to fund that representation. But there is an issue of the effect on the inquiry of 50 different barristers—let alone the cost; we are talking about three or four million dollars. Let us ignore the cost. The cost of the inquiry put to me is about $7 million. We can find another three or four million dollars. But a coronial inquiry with 50 separate barristers representing 50 separate witnesses is unworkable.

The Leader of the Opposition expresses concern at the inquiry not being completed before the next bushfire season. I can tell you that, with that sort of arrangement, it will not be finished for a couple of years. It would simply be unworkable. We are trying to apply some rational basis to the need for separate representation.

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