Page 2160 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Motion by Mr Corbell proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.48): I would like to just conclude the remarks that I was trying to make during the budget speech. I got distracted and did not quite get there. I could have asked for an extension of time, but I thought I might have been pressing my luck. I thought I would just use the adjournment debate.
I was saying, Mr Speaker, that there are a number of spurious climate change initiatives in this budget, which you had touched on and we need to see much better environmental performance from the Stanhope government. A word of caution: I have heard the same tone from most of the Green members in their responses to the budget: we are the Greens, we are here and we are players and we have made significant inroads into the budget. That has been the opening gambit, and then there has been a big but.
You, Mr Speaker, and Ms Le Couteur in particular, really drilled down into the big but. At the moment the Stanhope government is giving lip service to environmental issues. They have to be able to do more than just talk the talk, and at the moment I have not seen any evidence that they are able to walk the walk or that they are even inclined to walk the walk.
There are a few other issues that I need to touch on. The disappearance of the women’s statement is disappointing. Over a number of years I have been critical of the content of the women’s statement, saying that it is not sufficient to say, well, 50 per cent of this program goes to women and therefore that is a women’s initiative. Mr Smyth and I made dissenting comments about the content of the women’s statement in the last estimates committee and obviously it has become too difficult for the government and the Minister for Women, who is now the Treasurer, to come up with an effective women’s statement, so it was easier to take it out. I think that is quite remiss and that we should see a women’s statement in future.
I am also concerned about the extraordinary costs of planning, design and feasibility studies that is in the capital works budget. I draw particular attention in my portfolio to $4 million for planning and design work for the Supreme Court. This is a substantial amount of money. It comes up time and again. For instance, I remember commenting last year in the budget debate that, of the $300 million in health capital works, there was $63 million for planning, design and feasibility studies. This is a sum of money that I am particularly concerned about because I would rather see that money go into hospital beds or machines that go ping than to architects. I do not have