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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1705 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Perhaps a professional driver should take it much more seriously. Sometimes the court will say that because of recklessness it is appropriate that a person lose their licence, even though it is going to cost them their job. That is a decision for the court. It ought not to be a mandatory penalty. In clause 10, the tables in proposed sections 32 and 33 specify minimum sentences for first and repeat offenders respectively. Once again, that is not acceptable, because it interferes with the court.

This second Bill has a great deal to offer, and I was always prepared to seek to adjourn debate to discuss it or to amend it. I am very pleased that we will have the opportunity to sit around the table and try to work out the best way to deal with these pieces of legislation. The issues are complex, and they are particularly important because they go to the very issues of principle and the way we do our legislation.

Debate (on motion by Ms Horodny) adjourned.

Motion (by Mr Kaine) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

MR WOOD (6.33): Mr Speaker, last week's Chronicle featured a front-page article on child care, specifically out-of-school-hours care, which is an issue that has been raised with me by both parents and child-care workers. I made some contribution to that article because I was stirred, as the Federal Liberal Government will be removing the operational subsidies to out-of-school-hours care centres from 1 January 1998. Many schools in my electorate of Brindabella now offer out-of-school-hours care. In fact, when parents are choosing a school, this is often one of the features they look for. Without the subsidy, some of these centres may no longer be viable. Parents wanting this type of care at their children's school may be forced to change schools or look at other options for their children. We could see our small centres, which are often attached to small schools, close and the school numbers decline as a result, with serious consequences for the community, or we could see our small centres close and some of the children sent to one or two large centres catering for hundreds of children who are all bussed in at more cost to their parents.

In this week's Chronicle there was a response from the Federal Family Services Minister, Judi Moylan, but I was bitterly disappointed in the misleading letter that she wrote. The fact is that operational subsidies to out-of-school-hours care centres will end in January 1998. Ms Moylan's claim that this will improve child-care affordability is just not correct. It cannot be substantiated. Some money may be available for parents using out-of-school-hours care, but this will be made available only by using the money which is presently paid to the centre as a whole. The extra subsidy to parents will not be of much use if the centre they use has to close because of loss of overall numbers.

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