Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 November 2005) . . Page.. 4536 ..


and on the job seeking round. Once upon a time the Howard government punished unemployed people who wanted to volunteer—imagine that. Then along came mutual obligations, and the Howard government decided to force people to volunteer. That was a nonsense and still is a nonsense. After all, the word “volunteer” means “to will” or “to choose”. Left to their own devices, many unemployed people volunteer by choice. Under mutual obligations, volunteers find that they are often forced to volunteer for organisations that they do not particularly want to work for and often forced to work hours that they do not particularly want to work—and the organisations are none too happy to receive them, I can tell you.

Howard’s beady eyes are now set on the single mother and people with disabilities. He is fixing them in his sights, looking to see what he can force them to do, although I am sure, as Dr Foskey said, many of those women and people with disabilities, given suitable work and suitable childcare arrangements, would be happy to return to work. It is not as though they are not already making a huge contribution to our community. Unfortunately, Mr Howard and his cohorts measure everything in economic terms. Mr Howard likes to trot out that he and his government are being fair and Mrs Dunne is trotting out the same mantra—“It’s fair.”

Mrs Dunne: I defy you to find the word “fair” in what I said.

MS PORTER: This is not fair, and he is not fair.

Motion agreed to.

In-sink garbage disposal units

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.36): I move:

That this Assembly:

notes:

the actions of the Minister for Planning in making the Water and Sewerage Amendment Regulation 2005 (No 1) on 29 July 2005, which reversed a ban on the installation of new in-sink garbage disposal units in the ACT; and

that in-sink garbage disposal units are very water inefficient and therefore work against the government’s stated water efficiency policy; and

calls on the Minister for Planning to repeal the Water and Sewerage Amendment Regulation 2005 (No 1).

I have moved this motion today because of two things: one is the duplicity of the Stanhope government and one is a failing on my part, and I will admit the failing on my part quite openly. Back in 2004, after a lengthy process, this Assembly passed unanimously a series of water efficiency measures that were related to works that could be done in new houses or new domestic constructions.

One of the initiatives passed in the water efficiency bill that came into effect in September 2005 was that in all new domestic constructions, whether a new building or


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .