What is-- what's the usual procedure? What are the guidelines or the, or the triggers for something like this to be called?

Well, it's, uh, usually if there's an unexplained death which hasn't resulted in, uh, any-- which is not the subject of criminal proceedings, then usually there would be an inquest, uh, especially if there's any, uh, if there was any doubt about it.

I mean, s-someone dies, uh, in an expected fashion from, uh, a medical illness which had been predetermined, usually there's no inquest.

But, uh, in circumstances like this where there are questions that have arisen, and I think, uh, that, uh, Ros Thomas of The Australian, uh, came forward and, uh, I think she has, uh, exposed a lot of the sort of things that, uh, cast questions about the circumstances that related to the children and the handling of the Department of the, uh, of the incident at large.

And I would've thought that in itself was significant, uh, new evidence or exceptional circumstances to warrant any Attorney General, uh, uh, asking for the matter to be reopened and for them to have another inquest.

Yeah.

So...

But I think, you know, we all get a bit blasé about this.

or

any form of...

We had to do these sorts of things.

I mean, it led us to really curious things like being able to add and subtract and do proper research without the assistance of artificial technology.

But kids who are coming through these days, and I still implore young kids coming through straight out of university, and the degree to which they are coming out with a reliance on this, is just a little bit nervous for me and I think I take them aside and I say look there are other ways to do this sure go and do your research if you can but you've got to back it up you've got to have a plan b and you've got to really realize that this may not be 100 correct because you know sometimes it comes up they say oh you can rely on this case of Smith versus Jones in you know 1995 and you're going to have a look that case doesn't exist They say you can rely on Section 59A of the Trade Practices Act and you're going to have a look.

That section doesn't exist.

And it throws up all sorts of things which are quite frightening.

And the contribution, and I don't underestimate in any way, the contribution that migrants have made to Australia for decades and decades and decades, certainly post-war.

Google or

any form of...

We had to do these sorts of things.

I mean, it led us to really curious things like being able to add and subtract and do proper research without the assistance of artificial technology.

But kids who are coming through these days, and I still employ young kids coming through straight out of university, and the degree to which they are coming out with a reliance on this is just a little bit nervous for me.

And I think I take them aside and I say, look, there are other ways to do this.

Sure, go and do your research if you can, but you've got to back it up.

And the contribution, and I don't underestimate in any way, the contribution that migrants have made to Australia for decades and decades and decades, certainly post-war.

And, and I thought, well, you know, maybe is that because it becomes relevant down the track?

Well, I think they wanna leave no stone unturned, and they wa- don't wanna suggest that, that, that any issue might arise later on that she wasn't there on the night in question, or that she didn't disappear at a particular time, or there might be some other line of defense.

But I wouldn't have thought that's going to come into it.

The, the critical question at the end of the day is on understanding it from hearing both the prosecution opening and the defense opening, and that's where the Craig case is heading, is it's just a question that he didn't do it.

Whatever happened to these girls is probably not greatly an issue.

Yeah.

And the sort of evidence you sometimes see from prosecutors in a jury case, and to sort of, you know, make the, uh, deceased or the, the victim come to life and be a real person, and, uh, flesh out the whole situation just for the subconscious, uh, empathy that it might get for the prosecution case.

But this is a judge hearing the case, and none of that goes anywhere.

Has it made much of a difference to what we've seen in sentencing in those states?

Look, as I think I've told you before...

Someone who's provided with evidence of good character at sentencing gets very, very little credit for it.

I mean, it just gives the judge an idea of where the person is contextually in the community, what he's done, but it doesn't give him much of a break in terms of sentence.

I mean, reading some of the comments of the parties who support this, you think someone's getting a 50% reduction in their sentence or a 25% reduction in their sentence.

Getting nothing like that.

And you should ask the minister that when you speak to him.

i don't know where the line is here but you know are there you know we look at this from a society perspective some crimes that are so heinous that someone's prior work their relationships shouldn't matter it should be judged solely on that act that they are guilty for

A broad question, but how much weight do, do character references hold in sentencing?

Uh, almost none.

Um, you know, you, you present them because the judge is entitled to know all the facts about, uh, an offender, and offenders come in various shapes and forms.

Some people have never done anything with their life.

They've been a leech on the community.

They've been, uh, of no value to society whatsoever.

They've never worked hard, and they've committed lots of offenses.

Uh, I suppose the question is, should you get any credit at all for a crime like that?

What is the value of a waiver, as we've seen Geelong and Jake Kolodajny are involved in? Has it got any enforceable value?

Well, it may well do, but the question is if the AFL says you can't do it, then you can't do it.

I mean, they set the rules.

You want to play in their competition.

It may be quite legal in any other sphere of sport.

You might belong to a golf club or a tennis club, and they can ask you to sign a waiver, and that may well be operative between you and them in the event that you get hurt, but...

When you're talking about organisations that require a licence for you to play and they set the rules, then they can say there will be no waivers and if you want to have one, then you just can't play in their competition.

In your experience, and you've been involved in footy and cricket and in racing off the field in administrative roles, have you encountered anything that parallels this situation?