Page 2810 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
without the interruptions and delays caused by Mr Stanhope. Perhaps he believes that he has thrown enough mud at the inquest and that any findings it makes will be discredited, at least amongst his loyal supporters, in advance.
He should contemplate another risk altogether; that the obstructions put in the way of the inquest may create a feeling in the minds of voters that he, and the ACT administration, have something to hide.
Surely, Chief Minister, if that does not tell you something, nothing probably will. You have made, as I said, a couple of noises that are along the right track as to the government not taking any further action. You have seemed to indicate that you are highly unlikely to further fund. You have already funded, quite properly, representation for the nine before the coronial inquest; you have funded their appeal. You have indicated that you would be very reluctant to further fund any appeal. I cannot think of any precedent where a government would take that step, and we are calling on you now not to do so. We are also calling on you now to live up to the words you have been saying in the last couple of days about ensuring that this coronial inquest does go ahead, that people do get answers to the questions they want to know about and that they can get on with their lives and have closure on this.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.01): As I indicated yesterday, the government has announced that it will not be appealing against the Supreme Court ruling on the application on which it ruled just recently in relation to the potential disqualification of the coroner for perceived bias. That is a decision that I took after taking into account a number of considerations, including, of course, the significant issue around the time the inquest has taken to date, the delays that have occurred, and the fact that it is now almost three years since the fire.
Indeed, I am very mindful of the very significant cost of the inquest to date—in excess of $8 million, moving towards $10 million—and the delays that have occurred. I am sensitive to those and I am enormously regretful of the extent to which the delay in the finalisation of the inquest does continue as a burden for some, in particular, within the community. I am aware of that; I am sensitive to it; I am empathetic to those that suffered so grievously as a result of the fire. I took those issues into consideration when I made the decision I did.
I made the decision, too, as I have indicated, in light of legal advice provided to the territory by the territory’s counsel in the matter. I indicated yesterday that that advice was that the Supreme Court had in some respects misunderstood, misapplied, the law; that there were reasonable ground for pursuing the appeal. The advice of the adviser to the territory was that an appeal, if launched, would have had very good prospects of success. Those are the facts. That is the advice. That is written advice. That is precisely what it says.
I indicated yesterday the reasons that I will not be releasing that advice; it may go to a position that all governments in this place—indeed, around Australia—adopt in relation to the privilege that attaches to legal advice. Of course it would be to my political benefit and in my political interests to release that advice because it proves absolutely the truth of what I say. But I will not be releasing it, for the very good policy reasons that all governments, including governments in this place, have taken in relation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .