Page 2808 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the opposition has never, challenged their right to appeal. We have not done so. We perhaps query, after what Mr Beattie did, the right of Mr Stanhope to fund them in the appeal. Let us say that the jury is out on that one.
You can answer one question for me, Mr Stanhope. I would be interested to see whether, in R v Michael Somes ex parte Francis Woods, the public servants there had their costs of the appeal paid. But what is quite clear now, what is absolutely clear, is that the government has appealed. It has lost its appeal. It has paid out money for its legal representation. It has funded the nine individuals. It has obviously funded the DPP involvement in the appeal. That has cost $1.8 million. You say we will get that back from insurance. I hope so. You can tell me—I would like to find out—how much we will get back. Also I would like to see, in terms of I think the $8.4 million as at 30 April that has been spent on this inquest, how much we are actually going to get back from insurance and what effect that will have on the premiums. We are not talking chickenfeed here; we are talking about quite a significant amount of money.
In terms of any further appeals, which you seem to be ruling out for the government—and that is good—we would obviously be talking about more money if the government were involved in any way. What we are calling on you to do today is to rule out funding any further appeals by any other individuals. We are talking about a second round of appeals, Mr Stanhope; we are not talking about the appeals they took when you both took action—the nine individuals and you—back in October last year against the coroner; we are talking about further appeals. That is something we want you to rule out.
Premier Beattie took a very different approach. I know you probably do not particularly like that, but that is a fact. He did. He stated, in terms of the Patel inquiry:
We set up this inquiry and are not going to let it be sabotaged.
The report in the Canberra Times said that the Queensland Premier said the hospital managers had no right to government support. He continued:
When it comes to rights, the most important rights here are those of the people who suffered.
Those are the most important rights, no matter what you might think. You have a duty, as a government; you have a duty, as Attorney-General and Chief Minister; you all have duties, in your various roles in government, to ensure that the most important rights are those that you uphold, that there is a thorough inquiry and that the truth will be found, even if it might be in some instances unpalatable. I suspect in many instances it may not be. That is the way coronial inquests go. But you have a duty, when it comes to rights, to realise, as your counterpart in Queensland does, that the most important rights are those of the people who actually suffered as a result of the events leading up to the inquiry.
Another little furphy—and I did not have a chance, because you shut the debate down again yesterday, to reply and close the debate—and one of the points you raised yesterday, which I will comment on now, is this: you talked about how I and the opposition have never queried Mr Eastman’s case and the government funding of that. Let me tell you that the opposition does not want you to fund Mr Eastman any more. It has gone on for long enough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .