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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2116 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The Government cannot go round claiming that it is addressing social needs when it allows reports to be produced and then just sit on a shelf gathering dust, and that is what has occurred in this case, Mr Speaker. Before the Government comes back to this Assembly and says, "We do not believe that we should have a social plan because we are doing all these other reports", it should be at least a little more up-front about exactly what it is doing with those reports. Perhaps that only reinforces the comment from the director of ACTCOSS that social policy seems to be done by committee by this Government, but then there is no follow-up. Certainly, my reading of the comment was that it was a convenient way of sidelining social issues in terms of budget priorities.

Interestingly, in response to that recommendation, the Government went on to say that they are also developing a strategy for social equity through the ACT and subregion community planning framework. The Government has shown scant regard for the ACT and subregion strategy before. You have only to consider the Government's attitude towards rural residential development to get some sort of idea of what they consider to be the importance of the ACT and subregion strategy, so I do not think that it can provide much weight in that argument.

The Government also says that it is undertaking a poverty inquiry. That, of course, is to be welcomed. That is an important development. But if it is simply a case of producing a report and then not acting on its recommendations, which certainly seems to be the case with the quality of life project, we are really not getting very far. It highlights again the significance and the importance of developing a social plan for the Territory.

Mr Speaker, I would like to address quickly a number of other recommendations in the Estimates Committee report. There are some sensible procedural ones, including the provision of a lock-up facility for Opposition and crossbench members. That would be a significant improvement in providing for informed comment and understanding comment which is properly assessed in the light of the budget papers. My colleague Mr Quinlan provided some important input in that regard.

The committee also made specific recommendations about the Bruce Stadium redevelopment. I note that the Government in the response has referred to the advice of Mr Richard Tracey, who, of course, was the Government's legal adviser on this matter. However, I must say that that response was quite disappointing. For example, in relation to recommendation 11(1)(c), the committee asked the Government to inform the Assembly, in relation to the Bruce Stadium redevelopment, whether the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act had been breached in any particulars and, if so, what action had been taken. That was not even part of the brief to Mr Tracey, so how can the Government refer to that in its response to this recommendation?

Quite clearly, the Government has shown no contrition, genuine contrition, in relation to the Bruce Stadium issue. How can we continue to accept their assertion that they did nothing unlawful when they are not showing any genuine contrition? Quite clearly, Mr Speaker, the Government's response on Bruce in relation to a number of the other recommendations of the Estimates Committee report indicates that they have not been sufficiently addressed. These include the conclusion that the Government comes to in its response to the select committee's report when it says:

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