Page 2841 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
seen from the government to date. They do not appreciate some of the comments that have been made by the government. They want closure.
Mr Quinlan went to great lengths to say that this action would have occurred regardless and that what we were saying is incompatible with the rights of the nine individuals. No, it is not. The government has duties and an attorney has duties in how to deal with situations like this. These are not easy situations but fundamentally the government and the attorney have a duty to the whole community. They have a duty to ensure that there are answers to questions. The attorney has a duty as the first law officer to back his coroner, not to be involved in or initiate appeals against the coroner.
He has conceded that this is a first in any Australian jurisdiction. That should have guided him in what he did. The nine taking the first appeal would have delayed the action, but the proper, traditional response from the government, following the precedent set in the ACT in R v Michael Somes ex parte Francis Woods, was to back the coroner, even if the government did not like what might come out of a coronial inquest. The Chief Minister himself said that he had three choices: to back the coroner, to do nothing, or to go into the action. Even doing nothing probably would have been a preferable choice to what he has done considering what precedence dictates the role of a government and the role of an attorney should be.
Mr Quinlan talks about how much we are trying to make capital out of this issue. We are doing our job. It is sad that we have to be having this argument, but we are having it. The government has a fundamental, overriding duty to the community to ensure that answers are given. If someone has done the wrong thing, or if the government has done the wrong thing, you cop it on the chin and move on with it. That happens in life all the time. But the government has a duty to the people who own the 500 homes that were lost and to all the people who have suffered through the fires. It has a duty to the dead and the relatives of the dead and, of course, it has a duty to its own employees as well. But it has to balance its duties and its fundamental duty is to the community. It is not to try to hide and get away from a result that might be unfavourable to it. So what Mr Quinlan is talking about is absolute nonsense.
Mr Seselja indicated how far this government will go to support its public servants. All we are saying is that enough is enough. We are talking now about a High Court appeal. Surely the Chief Minister should have no problems with drawing the line here, especially as even he seems to be conceding that he wants this inquest to finish. He even seems to be accepting, perhaps reluctantly, that people want answers even though he seems to say that this magic legal advice indicates he has a very good case to go to the High Court.
That brings me to Mr Seselja’s amendment. I do not watch those TV shows, but I think Mr Seselja is absolutely right when he says legal advice is privileged and he is right in saying it is client legal privilege. The client is the government. I recall—I think Mrs Dunne might have been working with him then—Mr Humphries releasing some legal advice when in government. I have not seen it very often but I do recall that. Normally there is very good reason not to. It just strikes me that when Mr Humphries released it there seemed to be quite a good reason for it, and the sky did not fall in.
Mrs Dunne: And the community wanted it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .