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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3186 ..


Board of Inquiry

MR RUGENDYKE: I ask for leave to move a motion in relation to a board of inquiry to inquire into services for people with a disability in residential care in the ACT.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of Standing and Temporary Orders

Motion (by Mr Rugendyke ) proposed:

That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Rugendyke from moving a motion in relation to a board of inquiry to inquire into the services for people with disability in residential care in the ACT.

MR MOORE (12.08): Mr Speaker, I did not give leave for Mr Rugendyke to move his motion, and I will oppose the motion to suspend standing orders. Ms Tucker has been talking for some time about the kind of inquiry Mr Rugendyke proposes. Some time ago I had a rather acrimonious phone conversation with Ms Tucker about this matter, resulting in her hanging up on me. The very first time that I or any member of the government saw Mr Rugendyke's proposed motion was less than half an hour ago.

This motion ought to be considered carefully by the department and the minister given advice as to how we should respond. If somebody seeks to have an inquiry, they should present a clear reason why we should do that. The health complaints commissioner has the power to do this sort of inquiry, and there are other checks and balances.

Ms Tucker, a person who always seeks to consult widely, phoned me, I presume to make a recommendation to me about Professor Roger West. As I said, it was an acrimonious telephone call. I am not putting the blame on Ms Tucker. It was as much my fault as hers; there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, we have not had the time to properly consider the motion Mr Rugendyke seeks to move.

Ms Tucker goes on long and hard about the fact that there should be an appropriate opportunity for people to talk about things and consider them, but today is the first time we have actually seen Mr Rugendyke's proposed motion. I therefore think today is a terribly inappropriate time to debate it.

MS TUCKER (12.11): I understand that Mr Moore does not want this inquiry. He has been consistent in that line. Yes, I did hang up on Mr Moore. I did seek to have a cooperative approach. I am interested in how Mr Moore is speaking today. Is he speaking as the minister or not as the minister? We were told that there were no ministers.

Mr Moore: No, I am not a minister.

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