Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 513 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

four people dead, and over 400 homes were destroyed. It was the worst tragedy ever to strike this community. The community has responded magnificently, but it is our way and the Australian way to look at ways we can do things better next time and to see whether things could have been done better. That is not to say that people are going to be unnecessarily slagged. It is simply about ensuring that we learn any lessons that can be learned, that we do not make the same mistakes, if any were made, again, and that we do things better. It is proper that questions be asked and that we have proper inquiries to see how we can do things better. That is what the community expects.

Mr Stanhope mentioned the coronial inquiry. I am not going to repeat what I said before in relation to section 18 and section 19. That is on the record. Suffice it to say that, thorough as the coronial inquiry will be, good as the coroner is-I regard Maria Doogan as one of our best magistrates, and I am sure she will do an excellent job-the coronial inquiry cannot cover the full spectrum. Even the Chief Minister conceded that it will take some time.

If the coronial inquiry is going to do everything, why have the McLeod inquiry, even as it stands? But if we do have that inquiry, why not do it properly? Why not ensure that witnesses have full protection? Why not ensure that anyone else appearing before it, such as counsel, has protection? Mr McLeod himself does. There is no reason why the McLeod inquiry cannot operate concurrently with the coronial inquiry. If you want quick answers, there is no reason why those quick answers cannot come from the McLeod inquiry under the Inquiries Act, as Mr Smyth is seeking, and as they come would from the inquiry as it is being conducted at present.

My colleague has gone into the aspects of defamation. As I said in introducing my bill, that is part of the reason for having an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Obviously, if this motion gets up, my bill will lapse. This is a much more thorough way of doing things, and a preferable way.

I go back to the Gallop inquiry. It was very thorough. It covered things that were not covered by the Somes coronial inquest. The Somes coronial inquest was a very thorough inquest. In fact, Coroner Somes did a number of very thorough inquests which led to some significant improvements being made in the way things were done. I have mentioned before the thorough inquests he did into some deaths in custody which were also the subject of the Gallop inquiry. But the Gallop Inquiry covered a large range of areas that the coronial inquiry did not cover and that one would not have expected it to cover. If we are going to do this-we still have time-let us do it right.

If this motion goes down, as would appear likely-Mrs Cross seems to be indicating that she is not going to vote for it-of course I am happy to work with the Chief Minister. I had my bill done through parliamentary counsel. I would be intrigued to see what additions are needed, but I will assist with anything that ensures that people are protected. It is crucially important that that be done quickly and that, if this motion goes down, the bill be passed next Wednesday, Chief Minister, because submissions have already been taken.

This Assembly still has the chance to do an inquiry. Change the McLeod inquiry. Put it under the Inquiries Act. It would have the same terms of reference as the Chief Minister announced and the same head in Mr McLeod. As my colleague Mr Smyth has said, the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .