Page 2689 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
occurred in the ACT in terms of what the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General has done in joining the appeal to the Supreme Court is highly unusual for an action such as this to take place. Parties on occasions in coronial inquests have sought to have an inquiry interrupted and appeal to the Supreme Court on an aspect to get a ruling, that is, whether certain evidence should be taken, et cetera. That the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General has a role in this is problematic. It has political resonances. The Chief Minister also as a witness and a government minister had a role during the fires, and accordingly there are very much political issues in relation to his actions. Also, as first law officer, the Attorney-General does have a vested responsibility to ensure an inquest runs smoothly, and this would normally mean not interrupting it
Dr Freckleton went on to say that one had to ask oneself whether the coroner had done anything, obviously, to bring the conduct of the inquiry into question, because any government that interferes “runs the risk of a vested interest and a political interest”. The role of the coroner, as Dr Freckleton pointed out, is not like that of a judge or magistrate in a normal case; they don’t go to the scene of a crime, while the coroner does. The coroner is an investigator, and a coronial inquest is a quest for truth. The coroner must give warnings, keep the inquest going and make the parties toe the line. The coroner can make recommendations to government, but government is free to take these up or leave them. Dr Freckleton concluded that he was “not aware of any comparable incidents where an attorney-general has done anything like the Chief Minister has”.
So why did the Attorney-General make such a highly political intervention in the justice system? The answer which he has given and which he repeated when the appeal against the coroner on the basis of apprehension of bias was defeated has been the same: he was given advice by top lawyers that there were matters of concern. This is how he stated it when asked in an interview on the ABC on 31 January this year:
Before making the decision that the ACT Government would join this matter and make an application, I did take advice from my officials and legal advisers about the intentions of others involved in the matter. I was advised clearly that the intention was or that the nine individuals and their advisers were determined to take this matter to an appeal to the Supreme Court … I answer the question … By responding—on what basis would I not support the action taken by the nine individuals when I was in receipt of advice that there were matters that needed resolution.
The Attorney-General has repeatedly made it a point of valour that he should defend the nine public servants, saying on this occasion, “I won’t walk away from these individuals. I am upfront about that. I am not prepared to thrown them to the sharks.” Yet he was prepared to throw his own coroner, Maria Doogan, to the sharks. This is the same person about whom he said, announcing her appointment on 20 February 2003, in this place:
A coroner has been appointed—Maria Doogan—who is an excellent coroner and an excellent magistrate. She is a person with an inquiring mind—somebody who will do a thorough job. It is for the coroner to determine precisely the nature of the inquiry she undertakes.
The Attorney-General followed this up with a burst on the separations of power, saying:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .