Page 847 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What is the cost? Should there be more? Should there be less? I imagine I can answer that question before the consultant is appointed. All of those issues should be considered and then reported back to the Assembly for discussion in December 2007.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (3.48): Mr Speaker, if I may, I will invoke standing order 43 and speak to the original motion and to the amendment. While the opposition will support the motion moved today by Dr Foskey, I have to make some comments about the spray that Dr Foskey gave yesterday in relation to government concessions. I would suggest that Dr Foskey’s credibility in regard to her talking on behalf of low income residents in the ACT is fast dwindling. Yesterday, Dr Foskey believed that she was being persecuted for what can only be seen as poor judgment on her part for remaining in public housing after a considerable time of earning a most comfortable salary as an MLA. During that time she was receiving the very concession that the Deputy Chief Minister has just alluded to.
It is rather unfortunate that Dr Foskey’s continued indignation at being forced to hand back a government concession only serves to further erode her credibility to enter debate on such issues on behalf of people on low incomes. Dr Foskey alluded to policy change and was really a little filthy on the Minister for Housing for daring to move such policy. I dare say that if such a policy were still in place, Dr Foskey would still have us believe she would not have had to move. I hope that Dr Foskey is not suggesting in this debate that government concessions simply be given willy-nilly to people in need in our community without due care, diligence and scrutiny of eligibility.
Unfortunately, this is, yet again, a signal to the ACT community that the Stanhope government is not interested in maintaining a level of timely and accountable good governance for and on behalf of all Canberrans. I see the Deputy Chief Minister laughing and remonstrating. Her response was incredibly laid back and incredibly casual. She is getting quite well versed in this, as we saw with issues around family services. This is the minister who will come out on the front foot and say, “Yes, we fess up.” What we are seeing here is an embarrassing admission by the Deputy Chief Minster, who has had to stand up and admit to the Stanhope government’s tardy response to this serious issue. Her explanation was, at best, very convoluted. At worst, it was a veiled admission of not keeping up with the program. I realise that she has to sit there and tough this through. But we are now seeing policy being made on the run. We are hearing, “Let us have another review.” This is interesting, isn’t it? I was going to use the word “cover-up” but that might be considered to be unparliamentary. The review was completed in 2002. Thank you for that staggering admission.
To refresh my memory and to ensure that I was correct in recalling some viewpoints held by the Chief Minister on his “code of good government”, I cast my eye over an address he made to a group of Labor leaders back in March 2001. At the heart of the address was Mr Stanhope’s concern about the malaise and apparent inaction occurring in the Australian political landscape. He showed some concern—and rightly so—about the general dissatisfaction with and lack of public confidence in our government institutions. It is interesting to hear what he is saying now.
I was particularly drawn to some of the words Mr Stanhope used to describe the situation. Those words included “disenchantment”, “cynicism”, “frustration”,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .