Page 2814 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My sympathies are with everybody affected by the fires. I come from the bush. I know the impact of fire. I was here at that time. I, like everyone else, cried with the people of Canberra. That is where I come from. I have to say that there have been times when the debate in this house has troubled me deeply, because I have seen it more as a point-scoring exercise, us against them, than an attempt to represent the concerns of the people hurt by the fire.
I have to say that parts of today’s debate have, I believe, transcended that. I want to acknowledge that in the house. I do not know whether it is because of the debate or for other reasons that somehow or other we do seem to be edging—and I use that word in its slowest sense—towards some sort of closure. The word “closure” is so often misused, but at least we seem to be edging to a political closure on this matter. I just want to acknowledge that. I also would like to hope that any future discussion we have in this house on this matter will be a much more constructive, tripartisan affair.
It is fairly clear from Mr Stanhope’s speech today, and was already clear yesterday from his media release, that the Chief Minister and Attorney-General has given an undertaking not to take further legal action against the coronial inquest. That, I assume, is the kind of commitment that Mr Stefaniak is looking for with his motion. I believe that the ACT government could and should take the line that it would not fund any appeal of the Supreme Court’s recent decision against the claimed perceived bias. However, I am not so certain about calling on the Attorney-General to refuse to fund any further appeal by individuals because it is undoubtedly possible that something new and unexpected could pop up which could result in legal action.
I do believe it is in the nature of government that there is a responsibility for one’s officers generally when they are carrying out the policy and their role description as they believe it to be. I think it would be very difficult for any government to stand up and say that they were not going to support their employees. It may be difficult, as it is in the Bundaberg hospital case, and it has been over these fires. But it is one of the perhaps more onerous responsibilities of being in government.
I found the past several months of fairly abstract legal argument, both about the question of perceived bias and in regard to the coroner’s jurisdiction, unfortunate. I would much prefer us to use our time and recourses constructively; but, regrettably, this is not always possible. The really basic questions such as why people were not advised of the danger of the fires much earlier than they were and what was the analysis of the possible impact of the fires prior to their descent on Canberra—apart from the fact people tell us that anyone would have known it was going to happen—are of much more significance to most of us than whether the coroner had expressed a perceived bias. Whether the action was a metaphor for something else, what the community had was deeper and more burning questions. “Burning” was not meant to be a pun.
I will take this opportunity to put on the record my particular disappointment that we had to go down the path of questioning the jurisdiction of the coroner. Once the question was opened up, however, and in the context of an existing appeal to the Supreme Court, it was probably a mark of efficiency that the issue was dealt with when it was. I cannot imagine the frustration and hostility if that matter was only being dealt with now, after the court had looked at the question of perceived bias.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .