Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2722 ..
MR WOOD: We could, but the Assembly is now going down another road. In order for the Assembly committee, my committee, to look at this issue, we would have had to acquire additional staff and additional resources; so additional resources are going to be needed one way or the other. This is now the path we are going along and we will all need to work to see that this inquiry is set up in the best possible manner.
Debate (on motion by Mr Osborne ) adjourned.
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, it was ordered that Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
Debate resumed from 2 March 2000, on motion by Ms Carnell:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
MR QUINLAN (11.42): We have had for some time the government's response to the report on the implementation of service purchasing arrangements in the ACT. It has been on the business paper a number of times but has not quite made it to debate level. It is a pity. I think this a very important report. Whether you like the content or not; whether you like the form or not, the actual subject is very important, but I have to observe that the nature and tenor of the government's response to some extent degrade the committee and inquiry process.
It is one of those almost flippant responses where we say, "We agree with much of what you say." We read the thing very selectively and we write phrases like "the government is pleased by the assessment of the committee that" and "the government is heartened by the positive aspects of community organisations' submissions".
Now I have to advise the government that the only positive aspects of community organisations' submissions that it could select were those things that said, "Yes, we do accept that there needs to be accountability in service delivery within the community sector, but," or "We do accept that there needs to be reasonable reporting, but," or "We do accept that these services must provide value for money, but." That is because the submissions received by this inquiry were overwhelmingly critical of government.
I think that it needs to be placed on record, again, that a number of organisations that wanted to make submissions to this inquiry, and a number of organisations that wanted to appear before this inquiry would not do so unless they were in heard in camera, for fear of retribution by the government and its administration as a result of their speaking up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .