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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 403 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

mean that you will spend some more or are you just going to leave it at $3 million a year and ignore the recommendations of the Gallop report?

MR STANHOPE: I am interested in the claim you make in relation to increased funding for disability services, particularly in an environment where, as Mr Humphries said this morning, he knew nothing about disability services-or as he corrected himself, "We knew a little bit." One wonders about the basis from which you chose to increase the funding, Mr Stefaniak. One wonders-

Mr Quinlan: A public servant.

MR STANHOPE: Oh, it was a public servant that did it. That is a good point, Mr Stefaniak: did the government increase the funding by 42 per cent or did the public service increase the funding by 42 per cent? And if it was the public service that increased the funding by 42 per cent, what role did the government have in relation to that? If it was the government that increased it by 42 per cent, why did you leave it at 42 per cent?

One of the interesting aspects and one of the issues which the Office of Disability-

MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you should not provoke them too much.

MR STANHOPE: It doesn't take too much to provoke them, Mr Speaker.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, perhaps you should remind the Chief Minister of standing order 42.

MR STANHOPE: I will conclude on this point, Mr Speaker. One of the difficult issues that the disability reform group, the Office of Disability, the government and this parliament will have to deal with is the issue around resources. As you would be aware, one of the issues that are not covered in the Gallop report is the issue around resources or costings. None of the suggestions or proposals propounded by the board of inquiry have been costed. There is no suggestion in relation to any of the recommendations that have been made as to how much they would-

Mr Smyth: Ah, so we are only giving qualified support.

MR STANHOPE: So the approach that Mr Smyth, the shadow Minister for Health, and the Liberal Party would adopt is: "We will adopt the lot and we will pay for the lot," without even knowing the implications of any of that. They don't want to know.

Mr Wood: That's their history.

MR STANHOPE: That is their history. I guess Bruce stadium is the prime example. It was going to cost us $12 million for a stadium. What did it cost us? It has cost us $100 million and growing. It is costing us five million bucks a year. When I think about it, Mr Smyth, that approach would be consistent with your previous approach. That is the approach that you adopted in government. The approach that you adopted in government was to say, "It is only money and, then again, it is not really our money." If I remember rightly, there were those little issues too of whether or not it needed to be appropriated.

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