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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3400 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

we have been talking to many people in the field, in the ACT and in New South Wales, who have a different view from Mr Humphries.

In New South Wales, for example, I was interested to talk to Robert Fitzgerald, who is commissioner of the Community Services Commission. Someone from my office also spoke to Marilyn Walton, who is now Professor of Medicine at Sydney University, and was for many years a health care complaints commissioner in New South Wales. Both of them have had plenty of involvement in concurrent inquiries into coronial inquests, civil and criminal law investigations.

It was the view of both of these people, who have been working with such inquiries, that the holding of coronial inquests alongside broader inquiries is common in New South Wales, and there have been no complaints to the commission in this regard. Indeed, coroners have, on the whole, welcomed the process.

They both saw no merit in the argument that a concurrent inquiry under the Inquiries Act would have to interfere with the proper conduct of coronial inquests. There would only be some concern if the inquiry was directed specifically to look at the immediate manner and cause of the deaths. That is a very important point, obviously. What is clear is that, if there is a professional and sensitive approach taken by both sides, as has happened in New South Wales on the whole, there is not a problem. It is actually welcomed. It is welcomed by the coroners.

So what is the problem here? Why is there a problem if we have a person running an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act who understands the complexities and sensitivities of having two concurrent inquiries-as certainly Professor West would, having worked in that field in New South Wales with many concurrent inquiries.

If that person understands that the coronial process is central and the committee-or whoever does do this, but hopefully it will be Professor West if that is what the Assembly has asked for-understands and works professionally with the sensitivities around the two processes, then the actual inquiry under the Inquiries Act can steer around and accommodate the necessity of the coronial investigation. We do not know why there is a problem with this. Mr Humphries and Mr Moore have not explained that in any way.

We then got to the point when Mr Humphries said, "This is the same as the implosion," and Ms Carnell interjected in agreement. This is not the same as the implosion. The implosion inquiry was about a child who died, an accident that was the result of a major stuff-up, a horrendous tragedy. There was an investigation into that death. This is about services for people with a disability who are in residential care.

Yesterday, in the round table meeting, it was suggested that, if the inquirer did not focus on the manner and cause of death, and actually did not focus on the deaths at all, it would be a shallow inquiry. That is not correct. What is absolutely clear to 10 members of this Assembly is that, if the inquirer did not address the deaths, there would be plenty to do.

Almost every day I receive a call from someone in the community saying, "What has happened to this inquiry? We need this inquiry. What is happening? Please make it happen." And I say, "You must understand that there is an issue with the coronial

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