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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3703 ..

MR STANHOPE: It is. We used to call it being “Gary-ed”. It was called the “Gary”; I call them the “Liberals”. The question is, “Attorney, accepting this fact—which is not a fact at all; it is not true—do you do this?” The difficulty of course is that the whole assumption, the basis of the question, is false: it is not true; it is made up; it is confected; it has absolutely no basis in truth at all. One is then asked to answer a question on the basis of the falsehood.

It is an important issue. The question goes to this relationship between the parliament and the courts. We have a live issue before the coroner’s court—an inquisitorial process, a judicial inquiry into the bushfires. I think there are a dozen or so barristers representing a range of parties, including the territory. The coroner is assisted by counsel. The matter is being argued. There is examination. There is cross-examination. There is a vigorous and forensic investigation of every single aspect of the matter under investigation, namely the fire. And the opposition comes in here, day after day, and basically wants to relive an issue that has been run through the court. Those opposite ask me to respond to matters being put by the coroner in a process that I am not directly involved in, other than to support the territory.

Mr Smyth: You’re responsible for the funding. It’s about support.

MR STANHOPE: No, it is not. The point is that the question is about a statement made by the coroner criticising my officials. As to the criticisms about my officials, the shadow attorney re-writes it—puts words into the coroner’s mouth—and suggests that it is a criticism of me and that it is something that I did or did not do, in a matter that I knew nothing about.

They overcome those minor issues around telling the truth or otherwise. Over the last day or two, we have seen some ripper examples in the papers of how the leader and mentor of the Liberals—their national leader—deals with the truth. We see it being replicated here today: near enough is good enough.

It is difficult. I do not want to get into a slanging match with the coroner. But, as I said to the substantive question, I will not stand here and necessarily accept that the criticism that the coroner made of my officials was well placed. If you want me to go into greater detail about that in defence of the office and in defence of my department, I can do that. I have not looked at the transcript. I have taken the decision that I, unlike the opposition, will let the court process run. I will let it be handled by those charged with that responsibility. But I understand from the—

Mr Smyth: So you’re not responsible?

MR STANHOPE: I am not responsible for running a coronial inquest; no I am not. It is called the “separation of powers”. You might want to come to some understanding of what “separation of powers” means, because you quite clearly have no clue at all. Nor do you understand the essential inappropriateness of what you are doing in relation to the coronial inquest. It is essentially inappropriate—it is wrong—that you, through this forum, seek or wish to rerun a judicial process. It is just wrong. It is wrong as a matter of governance and process. It is wrong that you should seek, through this place, to second-guess a judicial process. I do not accept the criticism. I will not get into

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