Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1642 ..
Mr Kaine: She should be excluded because she is too close to it.
MR MOORE: I certainly would not exclude her under the criteria of this legislation. Whilst I welcome what you are doing, Mr Kaine, I am making it clear how I am reading your motion so that there is no doubt in your mind or the mind of the Assembly as to how we would approach it.
It seems to me that the accountability for this trial, as Mr Kaine says, falls fairly and squarely on my shoulders and the shoulders of the government, and we wear that. Of course, the more the Assembly decides to interfere, the less the accountability on our shoulders. I do not see Mr Kaine's motions as interfering. I think that it is a normal and reasonable request and a normal expectation of members of the Assembly, and entirely appropriate.
I do not think Mr Stanhope would mind my mentioning while he is not here today that he has written to me and said that he would like to see a much more refined view of the criteria as set out by the advisory committee. I have no problem with that. I think that is very sensible. I think that is the main thrust of Mr Kaine's motion. But we would have to do that with the scientists who were running the trial to assess the costs.
Mr Kaine, whenever we do a scientific trial, we always do it, like any other thing we do in government, within the context of the costs. If you want to examine everything in minute detail, every time you add another factor that needs to be evaluated, you add another element of cost. We have put up a budget for the trial that we expect to be sufficient for an appropriate and sensible scientific evaluation of the subject which will stand up to peer review. That is the fundamental driving factor behind this matter.
If Mr Kaine would like to amend his motion to say that we can spend whatever we like on it, I am sure that it would be considered by other members of the Assembly; but we already have members of the Assembly saying that they consider that this money would be better spent in other areas. We have to make a judgment on that, as we have to do in almost every arm of government. As Mr Kaine would well know, having been Chief Minister, you do the best you can within a reasonable cost regime. Certainly, we will continue to take that approach. Mr Kaine, is quite specific about asking for the name of the person, group or organisation who will conduct the assessment of the trial. Of course, we will make that available.
I feel very comfortable about meeting the criteria that Mr Kaine has set out in his motion within the framework of what I have just said. But, most importantly, what I am doing is driven by the legislation that has been passed by this Assembly. I see the motion as clarification of that legislation. For that reason, we welcome the input from Mr Kaine and other members of the Assembly.
MR QUINLAN
(11.50): I rise in the place of Jon Stanhope who, unfortunately, is at a funeral as we speak. I note that this debate has moved from just the presentation of the information to the quality of the information that we have received. We recognise that there will always be concerns within the community surrounding this trial. The ALP has tried to allay those concerns by ensuring that the community is closely involved. In fact,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .