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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 187 ..

MR STANHOPE: The two most amusing letters I have read in relation to the Liberal Party's attitude to an inquiry are those that make that very point-that there is a whole range of attitudes about the Liberal Party's stewardship that we probably should have a deep, hard look at. I am sure that will be done through the coronial process and through the McLeod process. That is not the point I was making, Mrs Dunne. You misrepresented the position I was putting. The very point I was making was that it is in interests of absolutely nobody in this community, this government or your party or in the interests of the people of Canberra for this not to be full and thorough. It is what we want, it is what the people of Canberra want and it is what they are going to have.

MRS CROSS (4.28): Mr Speaker, I cannot support this motion by the Leader of the Opposition to set up an alternative or additional inquiry into the 18 January firestorms under the Inquiries Act 1991. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to consider deferring this motion so that I could undertake proper consideration of it. It is a matter of regret to me that the opposition was not able to accommodate this request. Mr Smyth's notice of his inquiry was tabled only yesterday.

As a matter of public record, I have supported the government's inquiry, to be headed by Mr McLeod, into the bushfires. I have noted also that there will be a coronial inquiry as well as an inquiry into land use and forestry. Mr McLeod's inquiry will report at the end of June. The land uses and forestry study will report in four months. The coronial inquest will be ongoing until completed.

I must emphasise that my support is conditional on there being adequate opportunity for members of the public-and let us face it, they will be the most affected by this natural disaster-to have input into these inquiries. Accordingly, I have also noted the assurances given by the Chief Minister in question time today. I have been assured by the government that the public will be involved in the McLeod inquiry. I want to make it quite clear that my support for the inquiry is conditional on that public input.

If, and only if, that public input is absent or deficient, then I will consider alternative terms of reference or alternative inquiries, but not before the government's inquiry is given the chance to prove itself. The government's inquiry has hardly been given the chance to prove itself only weeks after it was announced.

I believe the opposition is being pre-emptive by trying to highlight issues of the government's inquiry that at this stage cannot be substantiated. I will not be supporting the Leader of the Opposition's motion.

MR STEFANIAK (4.31): Mr Speaker, I have listened with interest today to what members have said, especially to what the Chief Minister has said. The Chief Minister-I do not necessarily doubt him-seems to want a very thorough inquiry. You will get a pretty thorough inquiry through the Coroners Court, but it will not do everything. I think even the Labor government appreciates that, by having some other form of inquiry. But is it enough? I would suggest it is not enough, for a couple of reasons, one particularly glaring.

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