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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 278 ..

As I understand it, you want to see a particular focus on a more philosophical issue. That seems to be the intent of your motion: that we look at what this society as a whole thinks about the role of the father. That is an interesting discussion and I do not have a problem with having it. However, I think that it is a little bit rich to be suggesting that we do not talk about the problems of men. We talk about the problems of men and women. We should be analysing all our programs to understand whether they are meeting the needs of men and women, which is why, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we need to have this gender analysis and auditing structured into the work of the Assembly.

One other point I would make—a point I have made many times in this place as recently as this week—is about the importance of looking at prevention and early intervention in families, to prevent breakdown and the stresses that lead to breakdown. Once again, these are complex, they are about the society as a whole, they are about how people are supported or not supported in a society and they are not just about government.

Governments and assemblies are not able to solve all these problems. They are much broader than that. They are societal issues. They are about how we relate to each other in a community and as a society, and how we support each other. It is a good discussion to have, but that early intervention and prevention material is also part of this debate.

MRS CROSS (11.25): Of course, in principle I agree with Mrs Burke’s motion and the sentiment of this motion. However, the absence of fuller consultation with the members of this committee and the committee workload prevents me from supporting this motion today. I am a little puzzled, given that Mrs Burke has had two stints in this Assembly and is more aware of the committee process than newer members, that she did not consult thoroughly. I do, however, acknowledge that Mrs Burke first raised this briefly with my staff last Friday and, in passing in the corridor, with me a little later, when she asked what I thought about it before my staff had a chance to advise me.

If this had been a motion asking for the government or the minister responsible to look at this matter and to report back to the Assembly, that is something I would have considered supporting. I did hear Mrs Burke’s speech and noted her comments and the research statistics that she presented. It is a pity that Mrs Burke did not spend a little more time looking into this topic and did not share some of her information with the members of the Community Services and Social Equity Committee, including its chair.

If the South Australian model that Mrs Burke referred to or, if the information and research that she got from there was good, perhaps it is something that Mrs Burke could present in another format under private members’ business. Given that the work has already been done and that the statistics she shared with us today are relevant, her proposal is something that she could perhaps put in the form of a bill.

I have no problem with her terms of reference. It has been interesting for me, in my more than two years here, to listen to various comments on terms of reference, motions and other things. A motion cannot be all things to all people. Mrs Burke has chosen to look at the issue of fathers. That is quite an appropriate thing for her to do. There is no problem with her looking at fathers and not looking at anybody else. Fathers are just as relevant as mothers. I think that her aim of trying to address fathers’ issues may have been viewed a little bit inequitably. I do not agree with that. I think her terms of reference are

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