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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3404 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

There are some issues around this point, though, that do bear repeating and reinforcing. The Assembly has delivered a very clear message to the government that it wishes an inquiry to be held into a range of disability services. The terms of reference are quite wide-ranging. They deal with a range of issues covering service quality, service monitoring and accountability, consumer protection and resource allocation. The terms of reference do not extend to the sad and unfortunate deaths that have occurred in care.

The government has resisted the inquiry, and we can all, of course, wonder at why it is the government has resisted as strenuously as it has.

Mr Moore: They have never resisted an inquiry at all.

Mr Humphries: It is what the coroner has said that-

MR STANHOPE: We can all ask aloud, and wonder, why it is that the government has shown this tremendous disinclination to actually proceed with, and to respect, the wishes of the Assembly.

Mr Humphries: Because of what the coroner has said.

Mr Moore: That is right.

MR STANHOPE: The Chief Minister and the minister interject now that the basis for their position is wholly and solely the advice of the Chief Magistrate.

Mr Moore: Wholly and solely, that is the most important thing.

Mr Humphries: That is right.

MR STANHOPE: The view has been expressed that the basis for the case that has been made by the government is the view of the Chief Magistrate. Yet, we all know that the Chief Magistrate has gone to enormous lengths to indicate that the decision on whether or not to proceed with an inquiry is a decision for the Assembly. The Chief Magistrate has been acutely aware of issues related to the separation of powers, and we are also acutely aware of issues related to the separation of powers. It is important, it is vital, that this Assembly does not do anything to interfere with those vital arrangements.

The Chief Magistrate, in his letter, does not say that that outcome is the absolute and ultimate consequence of an inquiry being undertaken as requested or suggested by the Assembly. He does not say that. He points to what he regards as a number of issues, quite serious issues, and he has strongly held views on some of those issues. But then again, members of this Assembly have equally strongly held views in relation to the need for inquiry. So we have a circumstance here in which the Chief Magistrate is writing in relation to his responsibilities under the Coroners Act, expressing some firmly held views about his responsibilities.

I have some firmly held views about the need for an inquiry. I have some firmly held views that an inquiry can be conducted pursuant to these terms of reference without anybody, in any way, interfering with a coronial inquiry. There are a few issues to be resolved, some of which Ms Tucker has already discussed. And there is a response that

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