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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3412 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

government's reaction to it, I support the motion that is being put forward by Mr Wood. I think something has to be done. It is not good enough to just sit and talk about it.

MR WOOD (4.31), in reply: I ask today that the government accept the will of the Assembly. I ask that the government not wait another week for Mr Rugendyke's amendment. I ask the government to recognise that this inquiry is going to happen, and to move as rapidly as possible, to move today, to see that it does.

I was disappointed that both Mr Moore and Mr Humphries further defended their position today. I hoped that they would stand up and say, "Okay. We do not agree with you, but we recognise it is going to happen. Let's do it." Mr Moore said that yesterday, at the round table meeting, if Mr Rugendyke's amendment is passed, it will be done. Well, this motion is going to be passed. If necessary, Mr Rugendyke's amendment will be passed. But let's not wait, let's get on with it.

Mr Humphries has said that the 10 of us were ignoring the Chief Coroner's remarks. Mr Humphries needs to be more careful with his words. We did not accept the full thrust of what Mr Cahill said, but we did not ignore him. We paid very careful attention. We listened to him. I read his letter many times after receiving it. We paid careful attention. We did not accept that there would be problems. We were not convinced that there were insurmountable problems about that issue.

Mr Moore might remember when I had a one-to-one with him, two or three weeks ago, that I encouraged him, as I think others had-and he had it in mind anyway-to convene a round table meeting with Mr Cahill. I was happy to have that further meeting. Mr Moore said, as I wrote down, that he was willing to cooperate. I am not sure what cooperate means in that context, but he was very keen to do something, and he wanted to find a way through with goodwill.

Maybe, but it simply did not accord with what the majority of this Assembly wanted. Mr Moore has made various proposals about the nature of an inquiry that could look at complaints and other things, and as to who may carry out such an inquiry. He recognises, however, I am sure, that for the rest of us, his proposals were simply too limited and too narrow, and that the rest of us do not believe that would be an adequate response. We all want goodwill, but I am afraid the majority here will rule, and it has to.

I recall that Mr Moore said something of the order, in commenting on Ms Tucker, that she was overcommitted to Professor West, that he was her personal choice, or something like that. I know that is not the case. I know that numbers of names were proposed. I know that Ms Tucker did not come up with the name of Professor West. Other people did, in their good advice to her, or advice that was certainly accepted as being good. Professor West is not Ms Tucker's choice, as I understand it. She can correct me if I am wrong, but the choice of people who know the field, and I think that point has to be made.

Let's get on with it. Let's pass this today. Again, I ask the government to accept the will of the Assembly. Come back as soon as you can and say this inquiry is under way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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