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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3826 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Ms Tucker made the point that the response from the government has been tardy, to say the least. You would have to query why, after such a length of time, the response was tabled in the last sitting week, when the government must have known that there would be issues which the Assembly would want to debate.

I understand that some issues arising from the government's consideration of the report will take effect from 1 January. Yet the Assembly has been given no opportunity to debate those issues at all and, if they are not debated today, will not be given an opportunity until after those matters are put into effect. I think it is entirely unreasonable that the minister would expect us to accept those things at face value. When he tabled his response on Tuesday and Ms Tucker made the comments that she made at the time, it must have been clear to the minister that there was a clear message that Ms Tucker wanted those matters debated. Today is the only day they can be debated.

The minister must have been aware that there would have been a call for this debate. I do not accept that it is a debate that can be deferred. I find it hard to believe that the minister could say that the debate cannot proceed because he has not been briefed and he is not on top of the issues. If that is the case, then I am afraid the department is not in very good hands. I think there is justification for supporting Ms Tucker and having this matter debated today. It cannot be debated effectively at any later time.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12:08): Mr Speaker, if there is any blame for the delay in the response, that blame would be mine, because I was not happy with the initial work that was done and asked for more work be done. In the interim the portfolio responsibility has been transferred to Mr Moore, and Mr Moore has had a look at the matter and has himself asked for more work to be done.

The government's fundamental position has not shifted. These are reforms that we should have brought about on 1 January this year. Without these reforms, something like $1 million that would be spent on public housing will be forgone. That is a significant amount to help those who are most in need.

Before moving to suspend standing orders to bring forward order of the day No 35, the Public Access to Government Contracts Bill, Mr Moore said to all parties, "We would like to do this in the morning. There has been a misunderstanding. Get ready for it, and we will go through it quickly." That is the way you should do it. That is called consultation. You talk to people.

We got to read about Ms Tucker's motion in the Canberra Times. That is Ms Tucker's definition of consultation. She says, "I told them it is in the Canberra Times" or "I circulated a motion an hour ago saying I think we should do this now." The government could have adjusted its program had they known about this last night or earlier in the week when the response to the committee report was tabled. We could have reprioritised the daily program today to accommodate this. You bring these things on at the end of Assembly business in the expectation that we will just bump the program.

If it is so important, where was the consultation? If it is so important, where was the notice so that we could get ready? We have tabled our response to the report. I do not have my copy of the report with me, but I am sure I can get one sent down to me. I am across the issues. I am sure Mr Moore is across the issues as well.

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