Page 201 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stanhope of an arrogant position, an arrogant response, by voting in support of what he did in the first place. How arrogant can you get? You have a contradictory position. On the one hand you say that the individuals have rights.
But, on the other hand, although Mr Stanhope was a witness, you say that because he is Attorney-General he has got no rights, or the government has got no rights. That just devolves to a nonsense. This particular Attorney-General is capable of wearing the Attorney-General’s hat, of making the appropriate decisions—and, let me say, making sure that he took advice from every quarter possible before doing so and acting to ensure that everybody’s rights were protected.
I will close because we really should finish this this evening. Mr Stanhope, the Attorney-General, was not involved in an attack on the judicial system. In fact, he has been involved in a process that attempts to ensure that the judicial system works appropriately.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (5.17): Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter before us today, although once again we see the government making light of it. The Liberal opposition has to stand to present the case. It has to ask Mr Stanhope and the government to seriously and sincerely consider if the Chief Minister has indeed overstepped the mark and whether or not he should hold the office of Attorney-General—an office that people look up to and that people are now feeling a little shaky about.
What are the grounds for the no confidence motion? Mr Speaker, I put it to you that there are probably three points. The first is unprecedented interference in the coroner’s inquest through legal action. Is it appropriate in what has occurred to date? The second is failing to defend the judiciary against attack, and leading public attacks against the coroner and counsel assisting. The third is failures in administration of justice, including failure to appoint counsel for individual witnesses.
Professor Gerard Carney, Associate Professor of Law at Bond University, commenting on the role of the Attorney-General, states:
There is no precedent of which I am aware where the Attorney-General has been regarded as under a legal duty to intervene in the conduct of a commission of inquiry in circumstances where the commission may be exceeding its terms of reference. Any intervention, certainly of a covert nature, would be viewed as a threat to the independence and integrity of the commission.
It is clear that Mr Stanhope has a case to answer and if his colleagues back him and deny the community some justice here—and there is a travesty of justice in this place—we will be in a serious situation where we will be allowing these actions, which have been ably and adequately defended this afternoon, to just pass through to the keeper. What does the future hold for such positions of integrity?
It is regrettable and disappointing that the government finds this matter amusing or just casts it aside. We see government ministers sitting around now, laughing and talking amongst themselves. They obviously do not hold their jobs in high esteem. They are taking things for granted now that they are back in this place as a majority government. They are feeling all safe and cushy, thinking, “We have nothing else to do now. The job’s done; we can sit back, lads, and relax. We can just do what we want to do. We can
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .