Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1432 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Again, Mr Collaery misrepresents the facts and potentially pre-empts the coroner's findings in respect of the inquest. This time, however, he directly links the proposed legislation to his client's ability to seek compensation ...
This is the Attorney's calm and objective reference of this matter to the Law Society:
In doing so, he brings the legal profession into disrepute because of the deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, the opportunistic behaviour he exhibits and the shallow disregard for the due processes of law.
That is a description by the Attorney-General of his interpretation of Mr Collaery's entry into a public debate on a piece of legislation tabled last November. We do need to look at the timing of the Attorney's letter. The Attorney was so affronted by Mr Humphries' entry into the debate in November, we understand, that he felt that Mr Collaery had brought the legal profession into disrepute "because of the deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, the opportunistic behaviour he exhibits and the shallow disregard for the due processes of law". That is savage language by the Attorney. The Attorney was so concerned by Mr Collaery's behaviour that he only waited four or five months to lodge the complaint. He waited over four months. I know the wheels turn slowly in the Attorney's office - we all know that - but he waited four months to lodge a complaint.
Mr Moore: What was the second catalyst?
MR STANHOPE: I am glad you remind me, because I had forgotten this point. It is a very important point and I thank Mr Moore for bringing it to my attention. The second catalyst that one should mention is that Mr Humphries' complaint was lodged two days after a full two-page expose in the Melbourne Age which damned the ACT Government unequivocally. The timing is coincidental. Mr Humphries read the Melbourne Age on 21 March and took fright. He felt, "I have been trying to destabilise Mr Collaery. I have arranged for my staff to visit the Bender home. I have arranged for my staff to make representations to the Bender family about the fitness of Mr Collaery".
Before I get to that visit, I should just mention some of Mr Collaery's responses. Mr Collaery's response to the Law Society puts the lie and exposes the hypocrisy and the lack of objectivity of the Attorney in a whole range of areas. He raises, which it is relevant for us to think about, the other catalyst that one might have regard to, given Mr Moore's interest in catalysts. The other catalyst is the fact that Mr Humphries' request followed just a couple of weeks after Mr Berry had tabled legislation which followed on from the Attorney's failure to act when approached directly by the coroner about what the coroner suggested may be issues of concern in relation to the continuing applicability of the legislation covering occupational health and safety to the hospital implosion. We do need to reflect on that. We do need to reflect on why the Attorney refused to act on Mr Madden's concerns. We do need to reflect on why the Attorney did not ever introduce the legislation which Mr Berry did on his behalf some months later.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .