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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2219 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

acceptable option. The real issue that the government has to address is making that type of technology available to those people who currently do not have access to it. It is not just about providing Austouch kiosks. It is not just about having a computer or two in the library. It is about making that technology accessible in the way that most people would utilise that technology. Most people would utilise that technology in their own home. That is the place where the technology is used and where it is most effective. This government should be looking at initiatives to encourage or enable people to have access to that technology in their own homes.

The only organisation in Australia that I know is seriously addressing this question is the ACTU. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has put together an initiative whereby anyone who is a union member is able to get a subsidised computer package and subsidised access to the Internet. That is a very strong commitment for working people, lower income people, to have access to the new technology and to the information it provides. I say in passing that there is another very good reason to belong to a union, but it demonstrates that that is the only way to properly address the growing e-divide in our community.

Whilst all of us who have access to information technology, who are provided with laptops and all the technology we would wish to have, may think that we are an electronic community, the reality is that a very large number of people in our community do not have access to that type of service. For that reason the government's e-services program only addresses half of the picture. Until it addresses the other half, it is not an adequate program.

MS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.40): Mr Speaker, I will address a couple of the issues that were raised during the debate. Ms Tucker indicated in her speech that she believed that the government's budget had no targets, particularly social targets, or methods of measuring social targets or the government's policy approach. That does not say much for Ms Tucker's reading of the documents that have been made available. Mr Speaker, you would be very well aware of Budget Paper No 4 and the purchase agreement that was tabled in this place. These agreements are about targets. They compare targets this year with targets next year in each output class and have methods of measuring those targets. They give estimated outcomes for whether those targets were met for the current financial year. I am not suggesting that Ms Tucker will always agree with our targets or our measuring approach. The reality is that the targets are very definitely there. They are not only financial targets.

When you look at the Chief Minister's part of the budget, the first highlight for 2000-01 is enhancing Canberra's social capital by implementing initiatives which support community life. That is No 1. Ms Tucker chose to jump over that and mention the ones to do with business development, which we believe are also very important.

Other highlights include ensuring that community consultation is carried out effectively, with appropriate feedback mechanisms in place, and continuing to achieve a more focused approach to policy development and outcome assessment for government function, for government performance. The list goes on, Mr Speaker.

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