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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2721 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I will take the debate just a little further because I think my good colleague Mr Rugendyke did not accurately represent my position.

In a media statement Mr Rugendyke said that an inquiry into this matter that he had argued for earlier had been denied support by me. Certainly, Mr Rugendyke raised the issue, but I do not believe that I denied support at any time. As committees do, we raise issues that we might look at and we talk around them and develop our priorities. That is what we did. According to standing orders, I am not supposed to indicate what minutes say. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether I could have the leave of the Assembly to read something from the minutes.

Leave granted.

MR WOOD: I will just read one little bit. In the minutes of the meeting of 25 January, under item 9, Mr Rugendyke indicated that the committee might wish to consider conducting an inquiry into the abuse of people with disabilities in care at some stage in the future. Fair enough; that was done. I do not think that that means that it was crossed off the list. Mr Rugendyke could always come back to it, but he did not come back to it. Indeed, between then and now he came back and brought a different inquiry to the committee, one which we are about to switch onto quite heavily. So I think that Mr Rugendyke needs to look at his own priorities.

I might say that as chairman of the committee I am enormously tolerant. The standing orders of this place indicate that in commenting on internal committee discussions my colleague has breached standing orders, and he is a law and order man. The standing orders indicate that only the presiding member of a committee should comment publicly on internal committee matters until after any reports have been presented to the Assembly. All of the material that goes to a committee is confidential and is not to be published or divulged until a report has been presented to the Assembly. I think that I have been misrepresented in the approach that I have taken, but I am delighted with the low-key approach today and look forward to continued harmony in that committee.

There has been some debate about how this inquiry into disability services should proceed. I note Mr Moore's angst about the way we have opted to go, but that is the way it seems that the Assembly is now set upon and I would support it. I want to say at this point, as I have said on any number of occasions, that I have great respect for the people who work attending to the needs of the disabled. There are a large number of disabled people in our community and a larger number of people who give them dedicated care; there is no doubt about that. I have observed people in this area over many years, not just in Canberra, and I give them great respect.

I have to say also that I believe that there was attention to those needs at the departmental level, and I have said that publicly. Perhaps the gap between what is happening and what is expected to happen is wider than some people think, so there is scope for further investigation. That is the path we are now engaged on or an outside person or body will be engaged on. The gap is wider than I think Mr Moore realises.

Mr Moore: Do your inquiry and let us find out.

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