Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3077 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I asked him at the time whether he had a similar instruction from Mr Wood. The reply I had was that there was no change from that instruction when Mr Wood was Minister. So, even under Labor, the same culture was there, and it was that culture that needed to be changed. It was that culture that frustrated residents. I would be very happy for Mr Wood, or Mr Kaine for that matter, to contest that, should they wish to do so. Mr Townsend told me he was able to provide the appropriate notes on file and so forth that would support that, if I wanted them. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that is necessary.

We could go back into a process of asking about corruption, of asking about whether the public servants have been competent or incompetent. We could go into the whole range of issues that Mr Wood raised. But I think that is not an appropriate thing to do. The board of inquiry said it was not the appropriate thing to do. The decision of the board, within its terms of reference, was, "Let us look forward as to what changes need to be made". That is what we should be doing. We should be working together to ensure that the changes suggested by the Stein inquiry are the ones that are implemented. If we do not seek to implement those changes, Madam Deputy Speaker and members, then in another few years we will have another inquiry - No. 14, No. 15, No. 26, or whatever it is - and yet another inquiry and yet another inquiry.

This inquiry, for what it attempted to achieve, was a relatively cheap inquiry. It cost $500,000. That should be frightening. If the terms of reference had been broader, had they asked Justice Stein to use what effectively were royal commission powers - we all understood that - and go back to before self-government and chase out all those issues, we certainly would have had a much more expensive inquiry. Perhaps we would have seen use of the techniques used by the Wood royal commission. But what would it have achieved? Absolutely nothing more than what was achieved here.

What has been achieved here is this: Let us make a cultural change. Let us look forward. Let us make compromises. Let us work together in the best interests of the Australian Capital Territory. We have to stop pointing the finger. We have to stop pointing the finger at corruption. We have to stop pointing the finger at Stein. We have to stop pointing the finger at each other. We have to get down to the business of working on the recommendations and the compromises that Stein and his colleagues have suggested. That is what I want to do, and I will be happy to work with the Planning and Environment Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to say to you on an informal basis that the Planning and Environment Committee considers it will be appropriate for it in due time to adopt as an inquiry how the implementation of the Stein recommendations proceeds. We have not done that as yet, and I expect that we will not do it until early next year. There are a number of other reports in front of us at the moment that we are drawing to a conclusion. We hope to have those off our agenda before we adopt this inquiry. That will give the Government an opportunity to respond in a full way and to get the process under way. I think it is time for all of us to take the goodwill which I identified as a weakness of the former Minister and work with it and see whether we can get this system changed in a positive way.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .