Page 4376 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the context of work that we are currently doing—a draft strategy is under active consideration and is being consulted on—that it is appropriate through the motion as moved to essentially pre-empt issues that we have under active consideration. The draft strategy which we propose to present actually goes to the very issues which Ms Bresnan has outlined as important in her motion.
I make the point that the government has no inherent difficulty with Ms Bresnan’s motion. It is just that we do not believe it acknowledges and reflects the fact that we are consulting on a current strategy, that consultations are active. We are preparing a draft. It will be produced by the end of this year and it will probably go, I think, to most, if not all, of the issues which Ms Bresnan raises as important.
I am not suggesting that I disagree. It is just that at this stage, having regard to processes that we have in place, I do not wish to compromise the integrity of the consultation with relevant stakeholders and the broader community by accepting suggestions in advance of the finalisation of that particular process. I am not suggesting in any way that we disagree. It is just that I believe Ms Bresnan’s motion today potentially pre-empts a process which the government has in place. I have been very pleased to speak to this most important issue.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (8.36): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Stanhope’s amendment, as we do not think it provides the guarantee that we are seeking within the new framework, in that it would not provide for episodic illness such as chronic and mental illness, targets for improvements and gender disaggregated data.
With regard to the idea that we should not be calling for a new framework, as the government are already doing this, I would just like the Assembly to note that this is a matter I have been tracking for over a year now, and I heard the Chief Minister was having a new framework developed only after I tabled this motion in July. In August last year, when I asked questions on notice, the 2004 framework was still in operation. We were told in a subsequent briefing in October last year that the ACT public service might change something in May this year, as there were some federal changes coming through. We did get a toolkit in March but nothing to the degree we were expecting. So I decided in June to table this motion, and since then the government have come out and said they are working on a new framework. Perhaps it took the Greens putting the motion on the notice paper for this to occur.
So, while I do appreciate, as the Chief Minister has said, that there is this work occurring, we do still want a guarantee that the things we have put in this motion, which are issues which have been brought up in our consultation with community organisations, are actually accounted for in the framework.
Amendment negatived.
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (8.38): The timing of Ms Bresnan’s motion is appropriate, and I thank her for bringing this motion before the Assembly tonight. Looking at the ACT public service workforce profile from 2005 to 2009, the percentage of individuals with disabilities employed in the ACT public service
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video