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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 520 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This takes me back to the quality of the process. If the McLeod inquiry is about getting quick answers to important questions, we have to have confidence in the process or we might get the wrong answers to important questions. I went back over what I said when we had this debate before. When a politician changes their position, they need to make it clear why or they can be accused of all sorts of things.

The first argument I put was that I had confidence in the government's intentions to have a thorough inquiry. I said that there was no resistance to this inquiry as there was with the Gallop inquiry in the last Assembly. That was an important issue for me. But now I feel not that there is exactly resistance but that there are very mixed messages coming from the government about this inquiry. Those mixed messages are a result of what the process will be. Some come from statements of the Chief Minister about people who have made comments, statements that have been quite intimidating for some people. Some come from the very strong concerns that have been expressed by people in the field-not just the volunteer firefighters but also the urban fire brigade. We heard the Liberals read out at length today a letter from the union's legal adviser. Because of these concerns, people will not have confidence in the process, and we therefore may not get the right answers to questions.

I go back to the question I asked: what is the point of the McLeod inquiry? It is to get the quick answers to important questions. The timeframe for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act is an important point. I am aware that it would not be useful if an inquiry under the Inquiries Act took two years. I am not convinced that that would have to be the case.

There is going to be an overlap. There was always going to be an overlap between the McLeod inquiry and the coronial process. There is no way the McLeod inquiry could get quick answers to important questions in time for the next fire season without it overlapping with the coronial process. That was going to happen anyway.

Apart from resource questions, which I will get to in a minute, I understand that there could be legal problems about the detail in which the second inquiry goes into the deaths. That is specifically the role of the coronial process. If the person conducting the inquiry under the Inquiries Act is sensitive to that, then it should not be a problem. I would suggest that Justice Gallop was not sensitive to that position. I also remember issues with the hospital implosion. That was why it was decided not to have another inquiry.

I will not get into the inconsistencies of Labor and Liberal over the years. They do not matter. We will talk about the present situation. The fundamental point about the overlap is the deaths. I am sure that Mr McLeod, who is extremely experienced, would be aware of that.

The overlapping has resource implications-Mr Stanhope says $2 million. That seems excessive to me. Once again, it would be up to the person conducting the inquiry under the Inquiries Act. In light of what the government has said, the aim of the McLeod Inquiry is something that Mr McLeod would take into account in the way he conducted the inquiry. I am not suggesting that it would not increase the time. It probably would, and I accept that. On balance, I think it is worth it.

If we are going to have an investigation, we have to have confidence that it will produce the outcome the government wants and we all want, which is that we inform our thinking

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