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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3645 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

aware that this is a clear requirement of the rest of the Assembly and will ensure that the inquiry proceeds as required.

However, I have to indicate that, although Justice Gallop has the experience potentially to avoid conflict with the coronial process, there are no guarantees in this exercise that that conflict can be entirely avoided. There is still the potential for some conflict to occur. The government has heeded the concerns expressed by the Chief Coroner with respect to such an inquiry and has taken the step of appointing an eminent jurist to conduct the inquiry under the Inquiries Act to minimise the opportunities for conflict to occur with the coronial process.

Mr Speaker, it is my great hope that there will not be conflict and that there will not be any compromising of either process by virtue of the way in which the government has proceeded, but I make clear to the Assembly that the government can offer no guarantees on that question.

I ask members to note that the inquiry has been asked to report to the government, and to the community in due course, by 31 May next year. I present the following paper:

I move:

MS TUCKER (3.41): I want to raise a couple of concerns straightaway. Obviously, I am concerned that Mr Humphries and Mr Moore have decided in their wisdom that the person who was recommended and supported by the community should not be the person named to conduct this inquiry. The reason people were supporting the other person, Professor West, was that it was clear from his work in New South Wales that he had not only the legal expertise, skill and experience to handle two such inquiries concurrently, but also very broad experience in the area of disability, having set up the Community Services Commission in New South Wales and undertaken inquiries into the area. They were seen by the community to be very good qualifications for undertaking this inquiry. Obviously, he is someone who is able not only to work in a judicial forum but also to undertake inquiries in a hands on way.

Mr Moore and Mr Humphries have decided otherwise, and that is of concern. Of great concern to me is the fact that they have changed these terms of reference, which was not mentioned by Mr Humphries. I am sure members would give him leave to explain why the terms of reference have changed. Of interest to me is the first paragraph. The original motion directed the government to appoint a board of inquiry, pursuant to the Inquiries Act 1991, within 21 days to inquire "in a manner which recognises the limited capacity of some persons to participate and protects individual interests".

That was wanted in there because, as we have heard many times in this place, the community is concerned about consequences that can result from complaining about or challenging the government of the day in the ACT. The words "protects individual interests" were seen to be a very important aspect, as was recognising the limited

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