Page 4508 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Hunter made the case. She talked of significant failure. She talked of other things—that that failure was not isolated, that for more than a year the law has been broken. What sort of standard, what sort of bar, are we setting here if for more than a year of breaking the law, for more than a year of significant failure and for more than a year of failure that is not isolated, you get censured? What has to happen before the Greens in this place will stand up for the disadvantaged children of this jurisdiction and actually apply a standard that is worthy of their situation so that we give those least advantaged children in our community the care and protection that they deserve?
It is well and good for the government to say, “The Liberals are attacking the public servants again.” No, we are not. We are attacking you. We are attacking your administration for its failure to stand up for those who deserve the best and the most from this place, the disadvantaged children of the ACT. This minister should go. (Time expired.)
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.58): I will not take very long. Thank you very much, Mr Hanson, for the courtesy.
All of these histrionics and theatrics do not actually cut it for me. This sort of sanctimonious pontification that is coming across the chamber from that lot opposite does not cut it for me. What Ms Hunter said was pretty on the money. She was saying, “Let us start with the children.”
Mrs Dunne, with her quivering lip, does not cut it either for me. All that these people are doing is seeing a political opportunity and trying to make some political capital out of the pain of young children—and that, I am afraid, is just not on. That is just not on.
We hear, and we have heard through most of my time here, of a willingness on the part of those people opposite to assist in the difficult parts of public administration in this city—and I have not seen any examples of it. There could be.
When we are dealing with vulnerable children, we are actually dealing with just that: vulnerable kids. There is a suggestion that the minister is responsible for the issues that the Public Advocate has brought to our attention. The minister is not responsible for those at all. If you have got systemic issues going on and you identify those systemic issues and then you get on and fix them, surely that is due for praise rather than a no confidence motion. I remind the chamber that it was this minister that asked the Public Advocate to do the review in the first place.
We need as an Assembly to show some concern for the outcomes here because the outcomes are pretty ordinary. Everybody in this chamber is pretty upset about those outcomes; nobody is in any doubt about that. But let me ask this question: what good is calling for the head of a minister going to do? What is the outcome going to be—some sort of a self-congratulatory party over on the other side: “You beauty, we’ve got a scalp”? That is not going to be the right outcome. The real outcome here is to work our way through these systems and the cultures and the resources of the people who are involved day to day.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video