Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (23 November) . . Page.. 2534 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Then we have a graduated process, with several months for the second; then another several months for the third; and finishing, I think, in April 1997 for the fourth. It will be mandated on 1 June 1997. It is a graduated, very logical and very appropriate way, which we came to after considerable thought and considerable discussion with people in the area. We are doing something, and I think that you have effectively conceded that. We have a process in place. At least this Government is doing something to overcome this very real problem in our community.

I sincerely hope that we do not have anyone fall through the net, as Mr Osborne states. What we have put in place is probably about the best that we can do and the most sensible scheme. I look forward to seeing the results from it. We will see the additional resources that we do need to put in. At least we are doing something. We have acted on it, and the Government should be commended rather than criticised for that.

MR OSBORNE (3.21 am): I find it interesting how Mr Stefaniak came to his decision to choose the Belconnen-Gungahlin area, when the majority of children live in the Tuggeranong Valley. I would have thought that the most sensible place to run a program, irrespective of my being a member there, would be the place where you have the most children. Maybe it is too sensible and too smart to do it that way. I might be wrong.

MS McRAE (3.21 am): I remember the radio interview now, and I want to let members know that I was invited to speak about mandatory reporting on the Elaine Harris program. I was to speak after a bureaucrat spoke about the program, not Mr Stefaniak; and I was very disappointed about that. I might have said something a little different, had you actually been there, Mr Stefaniak; but I was very disappointed that it was not you there explaining the Government's decision. I also think that it is very unfair for a politician to attack a bureaucrat. I might have taken a slightly harder line had it been you - although probably not, because I do not believe that it is good politics to inflame the issue. I thought that members should know that, when the issue was talked about, it was not by you; it was by a bureaucrat.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Canberra Institute of Technology

Proposed expenditure - Division 220 - Canberra Institute of Technology, $59,405,700

MR BERRY (3.23 am): One of the problems with the Institute of Technology has been that under this Government the students are being asked to bear the costs in relation to the institute. The receipts are set to rise from $16.9m to $19.1m this year, reaching $28.5m in 1998-99. Student fees from the Australian International Hotel School make up the rest of the receipts of the CIT. It has become clear that the rising costs of the CIT are to be borne by the students.

Mrs Carnell: They agreed.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .