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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3361 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Over the last two years I have had recurring knocks on my door from people sharing their deep distress about ongoing issues in the disability sector. I have heard stories that would absolutely break your heart. Any reasonable member who has opened their door to the community would know the types of concerns I am talking about. But these are not just isolated instances.

The trickle of unrest that I have encountered has grown steadily over the past two years and reached a groundswell as the government begrudgingly made public news of the three deaths over the last year. But the three deaths are not the extent of the concern to families who have loved ones in disability care. They have genuine concerns and they are entitled to have them heard. I am determined to help provide them with that forum.

I am not the only member who shares this view. In recent weeks, I have worked closely with Kerrie Tucker and Bill Wood, who also have a longstanding commitment to this field. Only yesterday we held discussions with the health minister and the Chief Coroner, Mr Ron Cahill, who reiterated his preference for an independent inquiry to be delayed until after the coroner's report is completed. That may not be until at least the end of next year. Unfortunately, the government has latched onto Mr Cahill's opinion as an excuse to block the implementation of the Assembly's resolution.

I have thought long and hard about what is the most suitable method to reach a solution. Yesterday our talks achieved little. This stalemate situation is something that is likely to occur in the future and it is clear that we require a mechanism that will preserve the democratic vote. A number of alternative approaches have been raised in response to the government's refusal to appoint a board of inquiry.

The health minister clearly would prefer to conduct a watered down version of the resolution. He does not want a board of inquiry under the Inquiries Act. He wants something on a smaller scale. As far as I am concerned, anything resembling an internal investigation would not be good enough. The original motion purposely does not mention the three deaths and was drafted so that the range of other issues and incidents could be addressed. An internal investigation simply would not be satisfactory.

Ms Tucker suggested the moving of a motion of no confidence in the health minister. That would be difficult to achieve because the decision was a cabinet decision and, in reality, taking out a minister would not guarantee the establishment of an inquiry anyway; so that is not an appropriate route to take. Then there is the option of bringing back and strengthening the original motion. It seems, though, that that would not alter the fact that the executive, once again, has the discretion and it can again ignore the will of the Assembly. The clear-cut, sensible approach that ensures the will of the Assembly is implemented is to amend the Inquiries Act in the manner I am suggesting today.

There were two heartening comments that I did take out of the discussions of yesterday. Firstly, Mr Cahill made it clear that, while it was his opinion that the independent inquiry should be delayed, it was still a matter for the Assembly to decide. There is a distinct separation of powers and if it is the will of the Assembly to proceed, then it can proceed. Secondly, the health minister made it clear to the meeting that if my bill was passed the executive would have to appoint the board of inquiry. Those of us who have been fighting for this cause would finally arrive at the appropriate outcome.

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