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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3191 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

several chief executive posts in public and private sectors, including most recently as the first Commissioner for Community Services in New South Wales. Obviously, this is highly relevant to this inquiry, because he has such broad experience.

The Community Services Commission, as members may know, is a statutory watchdog responsible for quality assurance and best practice in government and funded non-government community services in New South Wales. Professor West established this highly regarded agency from scratch and produced many high-quality influential reports that did much to improve the quality of community services in New South Wales.

The Community Services Commission is also recognised for its sound management and quality systems. A Premier's Department review in 1996 commended it for its transparent decision-making processes, clear lines of accountability and reporting, comprehensive operational policies and processes, and effective support system.

For the preceding five years Professor West was the first president and CEO of the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal, a multidisciplinary tribunal involved in the appointment of guardians for, and the resolution of disputes about, adults judged to be incapable of managing their own affairs. Again, he established this body from the ground up on sound quality-management principles. It also gained high respect for its competence, efficiency and sensitivity to the needs of its constituency.

Professor West also headed the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and before that the Welfare Rights Centre and the Redfern Legal Centre. Obviously he has very broad experience. He has most recently been employed by the Victorian government, who had an Auditor-General's performance audit carried out on disability services there. It is not surprising that he was recommended as a very credible person and someone who would do a very good job with this inquiry.

I understand that Mr Moore is very concerned about the process here, and I regret that he has been so consistently against this inquiry, but I am very firm in my conviction that this is something that needs to happen because there are too many people in the ACT who have to work in this sector or are affected by the sector and who are absolutely sure about, and desperate for, this inquiry. I am absolutely clear that this motion needs to be supported in this house.

MR MOORE (12.26): I rise to oppose this motion and to clarify some of the things that have been said. I have not been against an inquiry. That is a misunderstanding of my position. What I strongly suggested was that this matter first goes to the Health and Community Care Committee, which Mr Wood chairs and which Mr Rugendyke is on, to find the evidence that an inquiry is necessary.

Although, Ms Tucker, you say that you have spoken to a number of people who say that they need the inquiry-and I do not doubt that-I have to ask whether you have spoken to the people who run Community Care. Have you spoken to Miss Grace or have you spoken to Michael Szwarcbord, the people with the responsibility, about this inquiry? You may well have done.

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