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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 276 ..

because their lives appear more liberated—more like how daughters are told their lives should be.

That summarises a lot of what I was trying to say about how our society still puts so much freedom into the role of the fathers, of men, and then asks so much of daughters, to live up to ideals that are being put upon them by a patriarchal society. The discussion is so broad and so wide ranging that limiting an inquiry to reporting by June just on the status of fathers in a family unit runs contrary to what I think needs to be done. Also, it runs contrary to the debates that we were having the other day about the family unit.

I thought that this Assembly agreed that the family unit was very broad and had many different aspects to it. I cannot support this referral as put forward by Mrs Burke, but I do acknowledge that there is the need for further discussion on this. I am sure it is a debate that will continue here in the Assembly.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (11.17): I will be brief. I just want to emphasise something that Mr Hargreaves said. The government does not associate itself with Ms Dundas’s line of argument, which, I have to say, borders on sexist. However, what Mr Hargreaves has advised the Assembly is that the committee—which, coincidentally, he chairs—does not have the capacity, with its workload, to give justice to this inquiry. That is the point that I want to stress. The government does not argue with the sentiment behind saying that there is a need for an inquiry, but it cannot support the referral at this time because there is already the workload.

I think Mr Stefaniak used the word “duckshove”. It is easy for a member of this place to have a good idea, stand up and pass it to the committee to do the work. It would seem that this referral will not take place. The numbers are there to ensure that it does not. Let me say that the government wishes Mrs Burke well in pursuing this issue and I am sure that, beyond today, she will “walk the walk”, as her leader has suggested, rather than having just talked the talk.

MS TUCKER (11.19): I will not be supporting this motion either. There are a few reasons. Obviously, if the committee is not able to do it, it is not useful at this point to pursue it. However, I do want to respond to a couple of the comments that were made by Mrs Burke and Mr Stefaniak.

The question of how men are faring in our society is important, as is the question of how women are faring in our society. As members are well aware, I have been calling for gender analysis and gender auditing to occur in all policy construction and programs in the ACT. I have said that you have to have a gender analysis and auditing process because different policies and programs affect men and women differently. A gender analysis audit process allows that to be analysed.

I have always said that I thought it would have been better if, rather than the Office of the Status of Women or the Office for Women, we had an office that was about gender and that we saw that structured into the work of the government. I have said that many times so I do not think I need to go into it in more detail right now.

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