Page 2811 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to the privilege that attaches to legal advice. Those are the facts. It would be easier for me, of course, and perhaps to my great advantage, to release it, but I will not be doing so.
I have announced, as everybody here is aware, that the territory will not be appealing. I think we can look at this motion by the opposition essentially in light of that statement, which was made clearly and unequivocally by me yesterday, that there will be no appeal. The Liberals do not want to lose the opportunity for another debate or attempt to further politicise the inquest and an opportunity perhaps to gain some further political traction. Irrespective of the fact that I made that undertaking and made that statement yesterday, the Liberals are in here today moving a motion asking me not to do what I said yesterday we would not be doing.
To that extent, of course, it is a simple nonsense, and the motion can be exposed for what it is: tawdry politics. I have made a decision, and I have announced that the territory will not be appealing. I have also announced that the territory will cooperate fully with the inquest and with the coroner, as we have from the outset, and that we will work with the coroner and with the court to ensure that the matter is now concluded in as timely a fashion as possible.
In relation to the second point, that territory funding for further appeals by individuals be resisted, I think it is important in the context of the motion and the situation in which we find ourselves to acknowledge again and state again that I have received no representations from any of the individuals that are currently represented before the inquiry, or indeed anybody else that may be represented before the inquiry at any time, seeking funding. I have received no representations from any of those people in relation to their feelings or their advice, or whether they have received legal advice or whether they are seeking legal advice. I have received no representations consequently, obviously, from any of them for funding. I have also indicated, consistent with the position that the government has adopted, that I would require some very significant convincing, or some heavy convincing, to support a further appeal by anybody.
But, in the context of the motion, I think it represents a dangerous precedent for the legislature, for the Assembly, to be seeking to direct a minister, the executive, in the execution or the undertaking of a discretion. I have already indicated that the territory will not be appealing. I have already indicated that it would not be my intention to automatically accept an application for funding. In fact, I have indicated the reverse, that it would be my inclination not to support it. But for the Assembly, for the legislature, to come in and put on the table a motion which says, “Minister, you are not to exercise your discretion; you are not to take account of any representations; this is how you are to do your duty,” raises issues in relation to the separation in the first place of the legislature and the executive. It raises, as well, significant issues around the role and responsibility of a minister in relation to the execution of that minister’s duty.
So, as a principle, the motion should not be accepted and will not be accepted in its form. To that extent, Mr Speaker, I have circulated an amendment to the motion. I move:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute “notes:
(1) that yesterday (16 August 2005) the Attorney-General publicly announced that the Government would not appeal against the Supreme Court ruling on its application to have the coroner disqualified from the bushfire inquest;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .