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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 129 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: The government has taken the approach with this inquiry that it should be properly resourced to do its work and should be allowed to do its work within the terms of reference which have been put before this place and agreed to by the government. I think that they are substantially the same terms of reference.

I refute the suggestion that the proceedings are overly legalistic. The advice that has come to me is that the hearings have proceeded in a very proper way. Ms Tucker might forget the fact that as a result of such an inquiry, theoretically speaking, certain people may have serious comments or observations made about them by the board of inquiry. Do not forget that this matter touches, at least tangentially, on the deaths of a number of people in the care of disability services.

The interests of the parties that might be mentioned in the inquiry need to be taken into account as well in this process and that may necessitate on occasions what Ms Tucker may perceive to be a formalistic approach in order that issues of natural justice are properly catered for and people's rights are protected. That is the approach that Mr Gallop has chosen to take. I believe that it is an appropriate approach.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to fund people to make submissions to the inquiry because I believe that the inquiry is being conducted in such a way that it will allow people to make those submissions. I am aware, for example, that Mr Gallop, Mr Nash and others have travelled to various homes in the ACT to take evidence in situ from residents there. That is an indication of an inquiry which is willing and anxious to get to the bottom of the matters that have been referred to it.

I remind members in closing that if I had taken the approach that Ms Tucker is taking to an inquiry headed by, for example, Professor West, whom Ms Tucker preferred to conduct this inquiry, without question I would be facing a motion of no confidence today. There would have been a motion of no confidence if I was doing the sort of thing about Professor West's inquiry that Ms Tucker is doing today about Mr Gallop's. Do not even think about denying it, Ms Tucker. Think about the way that this chamber behaves. That is what would happen. I ask Ms Tucker to live by the standards she would expect of the government.

Building industry

MR CORBELL: My question is to the Minister for Urban Services. Mr Speaker, when introducing private certification in the ACT building industry the minister gave an undertaking that the arrangements would be reviewed after 12 months operation. It is now over two years since private certification was introduced into the ACT building industry and to date no review has been completed. Minister, why have you failed to meet your promise?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, the promise has been kept. The review was commenced after 12 months of operation. I now have that report and it is being considered.


: Minister, a discussion paper was issued in April last year by consultants on the review and that discussion paper stated that the final report was due in May 2000. Minister, this report is now at least nine months late. Minister, why have you

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