Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3648 ..
MR WOOD (continuing):
figure, not a judicial figure, proposed by the motion who is very familiar with the territory. I think that there is a significant difference there.
There is a significant difference also in the timeframe that has been given. We will see how these things bear out in the longer term. I do stand up today and express the view of the community, as expressed to me in the last hour or so as the news of this inquiry has got around, that they are not confident, certainly at this stage, with Mr Moore's announcement. There is great concern. I reserve my judgment until I study the issues a little more.
MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (3.52), in reply: Mr Speaker, I should close off the debate with a few comments on this matter. First of all, I remind the members who made comments about Mr Moore's role that this is not, strictly speaking, Mr Moore's decision. It is, in fact, a decision by the ACT executive. People can speculate about what happens in cabinet on these things, but I can say with confidence that the entire government, without exception, believes that the course of action we are taking is the appropriate one in the circumstances.
Ms Tucker raised the question of a change in the terms of reference of the inquiry and the exclusion of the words "protects individual interests" from the way in which the inquiry should be conducted. Mr Speaker, there is no intention to change the fundamental direction that the inquiry is to take by virtue of the omission of those words. The terms of the inquiry have been extensively discussed with the Government Solicitor and with affected departments, such as the department of health.
The words "protects individual interests" were excluded because they were extremely ambiguous. It was not clear what that was intended to mean. For example, if the inquiry were to find, just for argument's sake, systematic abuse of the system by certain individuals within the system, then it would be quite appropriate for the inquirer to make reference to that in his report, even though that could be said not to protect individual interests. It is quite appropriate - in fact, necessary - that that phrase not be used in the terms of reference. The government has taken advice about the best way in which to construct the terms of reference.
Mr Speaker, I have no doubt that every issue which has been raised in this place by members of this Assembly about disability services in residential settings in the ACT will be addressed by John Gallop. I have no doubt about that. Members can rest assured that we have chosen a person who will be diligent, thorough and professional about this exercise. There are few people in the ACT whom I could imagine would be better able to deliver an inquiry of this kind.
To take up Mr Wood's comments about the blurring of the line between the executive and the legislature, he is perfectly correct in saying that this line has been blurred.
Mr Wood: In the past?
Mr HUMPHRIES
: It has certainly been blurred in the past and in recent days. In fact, arguably throughout the life of this parliament, for the last 111/2 years, it has been blurred and blurred and blurred. One could say from a distance that there is very little evidence
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .