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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3701 ..

Coroner Maria Doogan reluctantly agreed to allow the adjournment and criticised the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office for a “lack of foresight” which contributed to causing delays to the inquiry …

“I have been critical about the lack of appreciation from the start of this inquiry for the need for separate representation for certain persons and the delay that was resulted to this inquiry, that I thought was a lack of appreciation by the Government Solicitor” …

The coroner said that by the Government Solicitor’s Office “withholding funds until this date for counsel to have access to experts and to be able to obtain second opinions from experts” showed “a lack of foresight” that “again has resulted in a delay to this inquiry”.

Why have you until recently denied funding for counsel to have access to experts and to be able to obtain second opinions from experts, thus resulting in delays to this inquiry? Why has the planning by your department for this coronial inquest been so poor, which, in the coroner’s opinion, has led to significant delays in the inquest?

MR STANHOPE: In relation to the question being asked, I once again draw the attention of the Assembly to the sub judice rule and the degree to which the sub judice rule really should be relevant to questions asked in this place about the coronial inquest into the bushfires; also to the standing orders that relate to questions involving the judiciary.

Mr Stefaniak has asked a question about a report in the Canberra Times involving comments made by the coroner. It may very well be that neither the ACT Government Solicitor nor I, as Attorney-General, accept the comments made by the coroner. What am I to do? Am I now to stand here, as Attorney-General, in the face of a question asked of me about a matter currently before the court, and respond to criticisms made by a magistrate, the coroner, of ACT government officials? What am I to say? Am I to attack the coroner? Am I to attack the magistrate if I disagree with her? Am I to say why the court is wrong? These are dangerous questions. These questions are quite inappropriate.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 118(b) states that the minister is not allowed to argue the subject. The matter that he refers to is not sub judice, it is not subject to a coronial inquiry; it is about the administration by him of his department. It is a totally relevant question that he should answer.

MR SPEAKER: I think he was asking himself the rhetorical question of how he should respond to criticism of law officers by the coroner. I think that he is entitled to continue with his remarks in that context in four or five minutes, provided that he sticks to the subject matter of the question.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: he is not allowed to ask himself rhetorical questions. If he wants to talk to himself, he can go outside and do it. He is obliged, under the standing orders, to answer Mr Stefaniak’s question. I ask you to direct him to do so.

MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister.

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