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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3407 ..

MR MOORE: It is a great shame that you were not there when the meeting was held with the coroner, because I think you would have understood, by his tone and by what he was trying to convey, that he had a significant concern about this. You have conceded he has a significant concern. I understand that.

Mr Stanhope: Strongly held views.

MR MOORE: And he has very strongly held views. Those views, of course, are contained somewhat, because he made it very clear to us that he does take a great deal of care to respect the separation of powers. He made that very, very clear to us in what he was talking about.

It seems to me that it is very important for me to say that I have never resisted an inquiry into disabilities. I encouraged Mr Wood. In fact, I noticed yesterday-I have not checked today-that Mr Rugendyke still has a motion on the notice paper referring that very inquiry to Mr Wood's committee. Mr Wood, who has initiated this motion, did not want to have that inquiry, and did not think it important enough to have that inquiry, at the time.

Mr Wood: Garbage.

MR MOORE: You have a look at the date on that original motion.

Now, that is water under the bridge. We have moved on, and what we are interested in is having an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. I have said I am happy to have an inquiry. I would particularly like an inquiry. I have said a number of times that I am particularly keen to have an inquiry into advocacy: to look at the community advocate, look at the quality of our advocacy, and to make sure that we do deliver the best advocacy service. Of course, that should also include learning whatever we can learn in terms of how we can improve our disability program. I am very, very keen to do that.

What I have also said is, of course, that this is what the coronial inquiry sets out to do. It investigates the death, and the Chief Coroner assured us yesterday that the coronial inquest would also look at those systemic issues.

Now, what Ms Tucker actually presented to us in a very strong way is that the real difficulty, she says, is that there is a lack of goodwill here in this process. I have to say that I have to agree with Ms Tucker-there is a lack of goodwill here in this process. Yesterday I convened a meeting with her, with Mr Wood, with Mr Rugendyke, and the Chief Coroner. On a number of occasions I have suggested different ways of conducting the inquiry to make sure that it worked with the coronial inquiry. I have produced a series of suggestions. And what sort of goodwill have we had from Ms Tucker, who talks about goodwill? None, zilch.

Why have we had no goodwill from Ms Tucker? How do we know? She has not moved her position one iota, and yet I have worked very, very hard to develop possible alternatives that would be sensible, would fit in with the coroner, would respect the coroner's concerns, and still deliver the most effective possible inquiry.

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