Page 473 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Might I say, were he to stand aside, which we are asking him to do and calling on him to do, if there is any other minister who is going to give evidence before this coronial inquest or is likely to—regardless of whatever happens—that person should not stand in as Attorney-General either, for the very same reason. But any other minister who is not in that position could take up the role of attorney until that particular case, the coronial inquest, or any other related court actions, is concluded. When they are concluded, the Attorney-General then resumes his role as attorney.
It is crucially important that justice be done and be seen to be done and especially that the Attorney-General, the first law officer, ensures there are no possible adverse perceptions in relation to his role. It is not rocket science; it is not all that difficult. It is really quite a simple matter. It is not necessary even to interfere with the running of the government. It is something that should not happen in this case and should not happen right across the board. We are all on the same shore, I would hope. We have, on occasions, thought, “No, I have got a conflict there. I need to stand aside,” just like Roberta McRae quite properly did in that matter that I indicated. That is the primary thing.
The primary problem is: the Attorney-General is a witness. There are inferences of vested interest, especially if there might be adverse findings. There might be positive findings. Either way, there is that conflict of interest situation, the vested interest. It is inevitable; it has to be. It is just simply there. I defy him to tell me if there is any precedent. I would be fascinated if there were any.
There is another matter here, which may well be relevant. It is the second point that I raise for members. That relates to the Coroners Act of 1997. “Report after inquest or inquiry”, section 57, reads:
(1) A coroner may report to the Attorney-General on an inquest or an inquiry into a fire held by the coroner.
I emphasise the words “may report”. It continues:
(2) A coroner shall report to the Attorney-General on an inquiry into a disaster.
(3) A coroner may make recommendations to the Attorney-General on any matter connected with an inquest or inquiry including matters relating to public health or safety or the administration of justice.
I am not going to canvas whether it should be “may” or “shall” because that does get into the points, Mr Speaker, which are before the Supreme Court. But the fact is that a coroner at the end of the day may have to report to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General who has been a witness, who has taken an action against that coroner and who is then going to actually get reports.
Again, I think that probably compounds the fact that there is a conflict of interest situation here, quite a clear one. It is certainly out there in the community. It is very important for the role of the Attorney-General, given the fact that he is the first law officer, to take this step—and it is not a difficult step—of standing aside and handing over that role for the duration of this process to one of his other ministers. He could
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .