Page 1814 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exercise if, in good will, he works with Koomarri and the ACT government to undo the damage.
The last part of the motion calls on the ACT’s peak business and property organisations to publicly commit to an ethics-based approach of corporate social responsibility. The Greens have approached these organisations and put it to them that they would be well served by publicly endorsing such an approach. That comes directly from this situation, which demonstrates an absolute failure of the two key businesses concerned, Koomarri and Consolidated Builders, to consider the social impact of their decisions.
They are run by important individuals in the Canberra business community and members of key organisation such as the property council, the Housing Industry Association, the Canberra Business Council and the chamber of commerce, yet the whole business community seems to be sitting mum on this issue, publicly at least. This amounts to tacit support for the developers and makes a mockery of any claims they might make to corporate responsibility.
That makes me think that most business people just do not get the notion of corporate responsibility. It has not appeared on their radar screen as a guiding principle which informs all decision-making processes. For too long, notions of corporate social responsibility have been perceived as motherhood-type statements that public relations units work into mission statements and media releases but which remain that—just words.
In my summing-up speech, I will speak more about the notion of corporate social responsibility which will be informed by a federal government discussion paper which has, opportunely, just been put out on this issue and respond to the comments. I look forward to hearing from my Assembly colleagues on this important matter that faces us, even though it has been eclipsed somewhat this week by the budget and by various behaviours and acts of the federal government. We cannot let this one go. It is a test of us as a community. I will now sit down and listen to what the rest of you have to say.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Arts, Acting Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services and Acting Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11.24): Mr Speaker, the government shares Dr Foskey’s deep concern about the welfare of the Narrabundah caravan park residents. Some residents of the park are indeed amongst the least financially secure members of our community, with little capacity to relocate themselves. In addition, some community support agencies, such as Anglicare, actually rent facilities in the park to provide emergency accommodation.
But the park is far more than just accommodation. It is more than just a stopgap option for some people. It is home. It is a community in the truest sense of that word, a community that supports its members, that enriches the lives of its members. The government is happy to support all elements of Dr Foskey’s motion with the exception of paragraph 4 (a), which calls on the developer to walk away from the property deal at no cost to itself so that the park can return to public ownership.
The government proposes an amendment to paragraph 4 (a), which I understand has been discussed with Dr Foskey and which we believe better represents the nature of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .