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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2943 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

phries is speaking in this debate as Treasurer. Maybe in certain situations Mr Humphries should not be Treasurer and Attorney-General. But I am very concerned that he is failing in his role as Attorney-General. Basically, what this legislation reflects is the unethical approach of the ACT government and its crossbench supporters. The self-interest of the individuals involved and their supporters is linked to the inflexible approach of the government, which continually privileges economic outcomes way above social justice and community benefit.

One could argue, of course, that this two-tiered approach to entitlement is simply a function of numbers in the Assembly and of political realities; that the outcome last December simply reflects the fact that the government's commitment to cost containment had to give a little in the face of its need for cross-bench support; and that the cheapest way out in this instance was to merely provide special treatment for a few members of our community. But such an approach demonstrates a disturbing interpretation of the ethics of government and is in absolute contradiction to the generally understood notion of governing for all.

This is a government that has admitted to governing by numbers and it has washed its hands of the responsibility for fairness and equity. It has both demonstrated and acknowledged that unfairness is not an issue. It only looks after those it has to. The programs it puts in place serve only the interests of its friends and supporters and it has no problem with governing for sectarian interests. It is indeed quite consciously undermining the notions of aspirations or ideals. It is working from principles more consistent with those of totalitarian states where political and business partnerships provide the real imperative for all actions and decisions no matter what the impact may be on the disadvantaged, the less powerful and the unsupported-on everyone without friends in high places. How damning this is to all members of the government.

I would also like to challenge the statement by Mr Humphries that so many of these claims were inappropriate and unethical, and that they were rorting the system. (Extension of time granted) I was very interested to see in the Canberra Times of 19 August a letter from Alan Towill, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT, which referred to one particular example of what Mr Humphries called a rort. This example, which was used in many press releases, concerned the burning of a doormat. Straightaway I make the comment that there is a human being at the bottom of this story; there is a human being who was traumatised. I do not like the way the government chose to use this issue in the way that it did. The letter of 19 August in the Canberra Times read:

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