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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2716 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

politics from this investigation is a fundamental reason for having inquiry conducted by an independent commission of inquiry. I cannot stress that enough. We must remove it. We must have an independent look at these issues.

The Australian community generally is very upset about what has happened in aged care. There is a growing concern in the Australian community that governments are good at the spin, at the rhetoric, at giving out public service awards, at producing glossy brochures and so on, but they are not good at delivering services on the ground. If you look at the issues around staffing in disability group houses, you will find that they are the same as the issues that came to my committee five years ago. That is not good enough. We need to be seeing this issue dealt with in a very thorough and rigorous manner.

Mr Rugendyke has said that he will move a motion changing the form of the inquiry. I am very grateful for that and acknowledge Mr Rugendyke's openness on the issues here. Obviously, we need time to look at development of the terms of reference. There is also an issue around who is to be appointed to be the commissioner. Obviously, that has to be someone whom the majority of the members of this Assembly are comfortable with, otherwise we will have undermined the credibility of any such inquiry before we even start.

I am sure that the government would agree with that. If the majority of the members of this Assembly do believe that we need this level of inquiry, then I am sure that the government would want to see its having as high a level of credibility as possible. I look forward to having cooperation from the government on the appointment of a commissioner.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (11.21): Mr Speaker, I rise with pleasure to welcome the motion of Mr Rugendyke and to strongly resist the move for a further independent inquiry. Ms Tucker, your approach is effectively a vote of no confidence in the health complaints commissioner and a vote of no confidence in yourself. The question for you is: have you taken the complaints or the concerns that you have raised to the health complaints commissioner? That is why he is there. Only relatively recently-

Ms Tucker: I did. We produced a whole report, Mr Moore.

MR MOORE: You produced a whole report, indeed, and he responded to that report.

Ms Tucker: And what has changed? Nothing has changed.

MR MOORE: I will explain what has changed, because a huge amount has changed. I will come back to that. Mr Speaker, there are already independent inquiries into the issues Ms Tucker has raised. A very unfortunate death occurred, and we are all very concerned when a death occurs.

What has been done about that? The coroner is going to conduct a coronial inquiry. That is appropriate. Is that an independent inquiry, Mr Rugendyke and Ms Tucker? Of course it is. I have only to point to the coronial inquiry into the demolition of the Royal

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