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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3193 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It is important to understand that the previous inquiry into this area by the health complaints commissioner had two parts to it. The first part was the public part and the second part was the confidential part. When I was minister, I sought to have that confidential part brought to me. The health complaints commissioner gave it to me on the grounds that it was for my eyes only. I read that report, and I went back to him and said, "Why don't we cross out the names of the people involved and make that report available to members of the Assembly, preferably in a committee situation where they can judge whether it should be confidential?" His reply to me was that we could cross out the names, but if that report was made public it would be very clear to people exactly whom the report was about, because it is a relatively small community involved in the issues. I am aware that there were some individuals who did not like the outcome of that inquiry because it did not deliver what they wanted it to. Nevertheless it was fair, and it was done at arm's length, with the powers the commissioner has.

The other issue that was raised was that if we go ahead with the inquiry it would cause a huge focus on, and legal expense for, people defending their positions as they see them. It depends on the inquiry and how it is conducted. We already have a process in place to ensure that we can deal with health complaints, although the health complaints commissioner, after looking at some matters, has said to people, "Sorry, we disagree with you." That was the outcome of the previous inquiry. Having read the confidential report, I think I can say that it was a very small number of people who had a number of unsustainable complaints about abuse. Today we have not heard any allegations of abuse. This inquiry will disrupt the reform process that has been going on in disabilities and that will always continue whilst the very confident Mr Szwarcbord is manager of Community Services.

You can self-refer this matter. This debate ought to be adjourned. You ought to look at the matter carefully, with the power to self-refer to the committee. Mr Wood, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Hird will be happy with that, and I have always agreed with that. That could have started happening six weeks ago when I suggested that that was the appropriate way to go. Then you would be able to make a sensible decision as to whether to make this recommendation to government or not.

MR WOOD (12.34): Mr Speaker, I will comment on just a couple of issues. The matter did come to the committee. The committee has an agenda that is filled because of references from this chamber. It is as simple as that. It was a critical matter and became more critical because of events that I believe the committee simply did not have the time to inquire into.

The motion refers to Professor West as the preferred person to conduct the inquiry. I hope Mr Moore reads the script afterwards, because I want to refer him to the Stein report, the generally useless report that was done some years ago. I and my colleagues got it moving, and we paid very careful attention to what Mr Moore said about the people who should conduct that inquiry.

We saw to it that we had an inquirer that was agreed on. Mr Moore was able to have his input there. He expressed very strongly his view on who should or should not be on that board of inquiry. I expect that he will pay attention to the respects of the Assembly on this occasion.

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