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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3411 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Yet we had that little lecture from the Chief Minister, just in case we were too stupid to understand what an inquiry under the Inquiries Act is. I did not need it and I do not think the rest of us did, either. It is simply a part of the continuing debate about whether we should have an inquiry; justifying not having an inquiry.

I do not buy that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The voice of this Assembly on 18 October was quite clear. A majority of members of this place said to the government, "We want you to conduct an inquiry and we want you to begin it within 21 days," an achievable objective. The terms of reference are quite explicit, despite the rhetoric about interfering with the coronial inquiry that has come from both the Chief Minister and the minister for health. They are quite different from the terms of a coronial inquiry.

There is no reason, then, that I can see why there should be any concern about one intruding onto the other. Even if there was some possibility of that occurring, the two inquiring officers, a coroner and an officer under the Inquiries Act, are quite capable of sitting down across the desk and saying, "Well, we seem to be running into each other's territory here. How are we going to handle it so that we do not?"

I simply do not accept the argument from the government that it is all too hard, and that we should therefore conduct no inquiry at all. Mr Wood has come back today because he, like some of the rest of us, has become a little concerned that the government seems determined not to do what the Assembly asked them to do.

It may have escaped the government's notice that it is a minority government, and when a majority of this place places an onus of responsibility on it to do something, any sane person would get on and do it, and not spend the next six weeks arguing about why they should not and why it is all too hard. It is not too hard. It is not too complicated. I am sure the minister for health can understand the nature of this problem just as well as Ms Tucker can.

I find it quite distasteful that the minister would try to deflect the argument using a personal attack on Ms Tucker and her motives, but of course he is quite good at that. I think that he ought to be offering an apology to Ms Tucker for his attack.

I think it is timely that Mr Wood has brought this motion forward. It is a little harsher than the one that was passed on 18 October. It does not just ask the government to do it, in case the minister has missed the point, it directs the government to do this.

We have had two bites of the cherry: the first time we simply asked, but this time it is more than a request. I think it behoves the minister, the Chief Minister and the other members of the executive government to listen very carefully to what the majority of the members of this Assembly want them to do. And if they go away from here this afternoon and say, "We will continue with the same delaying tactics, and we will not get on with what we were directed to do," I think they ought to understand that there are ramifications.

I am not certain that most of the members of this place will be prepared to allow them to sit on their thumbs after having been told this time to get on with what they were asked to do six weeks ago. I am concerned about this. Because I am concerned about the

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