Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 515 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
Please be advised that union holds grave concerns that the format and procedure to be employed in the McLeod Inquiry will not result in an open and accountable inquiry. They also hold concerns that Mr McLeod's findings and recommendations may not be based on truthful accurate evidence-tested by cross-examination . . .
If Mr McLeod cannot resolve disputes of fact, and cannot view the demeanour of the authors, how will he decide which account is correct?
How will Mr McLeod choose the written submissions on a topic, that he is going to accept?
The procedure Mr McLeod is being asked to follow is analogous to asking the editor of The Canberra Times to make findings and recommendations based on the letters sent to the editor about the fire, since the fire occurred. If the issue was not so serious, the procedure being employed would be laughable. The findings derived from such a procedure will carry no moral weight in the wider community.
The union is also very concerned about what these 'briefings sessions' with executive officers entail. We would ask: who is briefing whom and about what? What purposes can such 'briefing sessions' serve? One inference is that the ACT Government seeks special access to Mr McLeod, over other interested parties.
My client is very concerned that, even with all of the good will and integrity in the world being displayed by Mr McLeod, his findings and recommendations will have no probative value or weight in the community because this inquiry will not be seen to be open and accountable. This problem arises because of the format and procedure being used to conduct the inquiry.
I would respectfully submit that your government consider holding this inquiry under existing inquiries legislation, so that it is undertaken in a manner that will give credibility and acceptance in the community.
(Extension of time granted.)
When the procedure and format of this inquiry is compared to the full and open judicial inquiry that has been commissioned by the New South Wales government into the recent Waterfall train disaster, one can only wonder why the ACT inquiry is so restrictive in its procedure and format.
Mr Bartlett goes on to indicate that Mr Stuart Ellis has been appointed to assist Mr McLeod. He comments favourably on that appointment, but also suggests that Mr Bill Kerr, a former ACT Fire Commissioner, should also be appointed. Mr Ellis has experience in rural firefighting, Mr Kerr in urban firefighting. Mr Bartlett also notes that Mr Kerr has never been a member of the union and respectfully submits that the government appoint him, or someone else suitable, in the same vein as they appointed Mr Ellis. Mr Bartlett concludes by saying:
The union wants the McLeod Inquiry to produce a useful and relevant report that properly addresses the terms of reference. It is important that the McLeod Inquiry does address the issues in the terms of reference because a Coroner's Inquiry may not have jurisdiction to look at all those issues. The union accepts that Mr McLeod, as a former Commonwealth Ombudsman, has the experience, the ability, and the integrity to hold a proper inquiry into the worst fire disaster to ever hit Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .