Page 481 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These comments were not directed at any members of this Assembly, so it is possible that a member of the Assembly might not rise immediately to seek a point of order during the debate. Indeed, I would submit, with respect, that these are matters for you, Mr Speaker, having looked at Hansard. I will now quote from Hansard the particular statements about which I am concerned. I indicated earlier to the Clerk for those to be circulated if people want them, but I will read them onto the record; there is only about a page and a half. Firstly, at page 30 of the debate Mr Stanhope stated:
It does not give me pleasure to stand here and dispute the findings of a judicial officer of this territory, but the false conclusions, erroneous suppositions, factual errors and comments that stray beyond the jurisdiction of a court cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged and to pass into history as truths.
On page 36 he stated:
The coroner’s allegation that I downplayed the seriousness of the fires is abhorrent, repugnant and unsupported by the evidence. In fact, it is contrary to all the evidence. It also flies in the face of logic.
At page 38 he stated:
Ministerial responsibility is not a concept known to the law, and the coroner’s intrusion into the matter is gratuitous at best.
Dr Foskey said at page 43:
Maria Doogan clearly resented the delay caused by the legal challenge mounted by a small number of ACT government employees and backed by the government. I am not sure that her annoyance does not colour her response. Certainly, her remarks indicate it does.
Again at page 43 she said:
Coroner Doogan felt that she could not do this without finding fault on the part of individuals. While she remarked that a coronial inquest or inquiry is not an adversarial hearing, I could not help thinking as I read her report that this one was. But I do not lay blame for this entirely at her feet.
At page 44 Dr Foskey said:
The expertise of Messrs Cheney, Roche and Ellis was relevant, but if the coroner was going to make recommendations such as 32 to 34, she should have had a broader range of experts.
And again:
If she was going to venture into such areas, the coroner should have sought the advice of fire ecologists and other relevant scientists.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .