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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3192 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

When I was the minister in this area, I saw the information from the Disability Advisory Council, which comprises a very broad range of people who are involved in disabilities. Their response to me was that they do want an inquiry. They want an inquiry into the deaths that occur. I understand that, and I think that is a very sensible thing for them. They were very keen about an inquiry narrowed to that matter.

There is, if you like, a higher level inquiry going on, because two deaths occurred in a disability residence. Those deaths will be inquired into by the coroner. Mr Wood, you may recall that when the hospital implosion came before us the former Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell, had appointed an inquiry under the Inquires Act to conduct an inquiry. The coroner objected. The coroner said, "No, do not do that. That is crossing the ground. I am doing that inquiry." We have two coronial inquiries going on into this matter. You are recommending that we set up an overriding committee of inquiry that goes across them but does more-and I do not miss that.

Another factor important to recall is that the health complaints commissioner did inquire into this matter less than three years ago and brought down a report. The recommendations of that report are in the process of being implemented in as far as that is financially possible. The recommendations on many of things you are talking about here-the training and so on-have been implemented.

Surely the responsible thing to do is for Mr Wood, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Hird, as a committee of inquiry, to check whether those things have been done. If they have not, or if even a quarter of the way through your inquiry it becomes very clear that the evidence is so overwhelming that the matter is such that you need to take some further action, then that is the appropriate time to set the terms of reference and make sure that they do not overlap with the coronial inquiry, then proceed down the path of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.

It is worth keeping in mind the health complaints commissioner, because the commissioner has the same powers as an inquiry under the Inquiries Act-almost identical powers. The health complaints commissioner, whom Ms Tucker seems to be dissatisfied with and wants looked at, has his own board which has a responsibility to make sure the commissioner is delivering in the best way. Who chairs that board? It is Ms Tucker's former running mate, Miss Fiona Tito, whom I have a great deal of faith in. You have told me on many occasions, Ms Tucker, that you have a great deal of faith in her. She was recently appointed-she has not had time to do it yet-to look at the health complaints commissioner in her responsibility to the board. The correct first step is to make sure that she and her board can deal with these matters.

There is no question that extra funding is needed in disabilities. Everybody in this house has heard me say that publicly and here. We would expect a recommendation from the select committee that has just been established that this is an area of high priority, and I look forward to it. I am hoping that my colleagues will agree with me that some of the cross-border money that comes, and with which we have done very well, will go into disabilities. The pressure on disabilities has been made greater by the fact that the hospital has put pressure on the amount of money that I had across my portfolio. If I am reappointed minister or if I am in cabinet-and that matters has yet to be resolved-then I would argue in that way.

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