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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (29 October) . . Page.. 2438 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

to sign a petition. I think a very significant and important part of a decision as enormous as this for the people of Canberra is the right and the expectation that the people of Canberra have to be consulted, to be taken seriously and to be listened to, and I know of no better way for that to be achieved than through a formal public and open inquiry process.

I have mentioned before that I have attended meetings of the Belconnen Community Council with Mr Rugendyke, a colleague of mine in the electorate of Ginninderra. I acknowledge that Mr Rugendyke is a very diligent local member and attends many meetings within the electorate. I have heard Mr Rugendyke say that it is his intention to represent the will of the people of his electorate. I believe that in order for Mr Rugendyke to do that appropriately he must give those people an opportunity to express their views to him through a formal inquiry process. I do not know how else that can be achieved other than through this sort of process. The inquiry process is vital.

I am concerned at the extent to which the Acting Chief Minister diminishes the value of the Assembly committee process by suggesting that some of us have come to the process with a preconceived and concluded opinion. The point that my colleague Mr Quinlan made very strongly and that Mr Kaine has made very strongly is that there is a whole range of evidence that has not been provided to us. The most patent of the examples one can rely upon is the UMS benchmarking document. The secret document that purports to show the extent of the lost value will not be made available even to members of the Assembly, let alone the community. That is just one example.

There is the example that Mr Quinlan uses about the range of options that are potentially available to deal with the superannuation issue. There is the point that Mr Kaine makes, that it is unreasonable and unnecessary that we link the issue of the sale of ACTEW with the fact that we as a community do have a serious other problem. There are a whole range of inquiries. I have heard Mr Osborne comment frequently on the impact that the surveillance cameras inquiry had on his views on surveillance cameras. I know in relation to that inquiry that Rosemary Follett, a then member of this place, moved to a situation where she and Mr Osborne were able to sign a majority report on surveillance cameras. Each moved from the extremes to the middle and came to a consensual position.

We have the suggestion by the Acting Chief Minister that he does not accept the legitimacy of members of this place with a settled position on an issue conducting or being involved in inquiries on that issue; that it is all a waste of time. The most stark of the examples of that, I guess, is the euthanasia inquiry, yet I am prepared to accept that the euthanasia inquiry served a very valuable purpose. But to suggest that we should not have had an inquiry into euthanasia because Mr Moore has a view known to the world on that subject and was unlikely to move an inch from that position basically denies the legitimacy of that inquiry. Do we now simply trash that particular report? Do we just throw it in the bin and say, "Well, this just represents Mr Moore's views."?

Ms Tucker: I think we just trashed the whole committee system, actually.

Mr Moore: That is what this sort of committee does.

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